Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation

2004-09-01 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation. [...] >> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c >> See cdrecord.c for furt

Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation

2004-09-01 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:19:26AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > -=-=-=-= cdrecord/LICENSE =-=-=-=- > > This software is under GPL but you should read the following > clarifications: > > > - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c > > See cdrecord.c for furth

Re: GPL "or any greater version"

2004-09-01 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> > > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free >> > > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and >> > > there's nothing you can d

Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation

2004-09-01 Thread Måns Rullgård
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation. > I wonder if this is considered acceptable for main (I would say that > this is non-free). I don't know whether cdrecord links with (or is > otherwise a derivative work of) o

cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation

2004-09-01 Thread Francesco Poli
Hi all, in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation. I wonder if this is considered acceptable for main (I would say that this is non-free). I don't know whether cdrecord links with (or is otherwise a derivative work of) other GPL'd software (whose copyright is held by other

Re: GPL "or any greater version"

2004-09-01 Thread Adam McKenna
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free > > > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and > > > there's nothing you can do to prevent that. [Your distribution can > >

Re: Web application licenses

2004-09-01 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>Glenn Maynard wrote: >>> Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again until now: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/ms

Re: Web application licenses

2004-09-01 Thread Josh Triplett
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Glenn Maynard wrote: >> >>>Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again >>>until now: >>> >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00369.html >>> >>>In this case, the only realistic