On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:54:15 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > What about a somewhat less paranoid option: GPL2+noA
> > (GPL v2 or any higher, except for licenses from the Affero branch).
>
> Do you mean "GNU GPL v2 or later" + "the pr
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:54:15 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > o if you want to slightly enhance compatibility with existing
> > licenses *and* you don't mind seeing your copyleft weakened by some
> > clauses of the GNU GPL v3,
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:38:21 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > There's another possibility: dual-licensing your code under the GPLv2
> > only and the GPLv3 only.
>
> You're right. That would be the following case:
>
> o if you want to
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:38:21 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/3/6, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > In my opinion, the decision boils down to:
> >
> > o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to
> > keep the promise that future versions of the GNU GPL will be "sim
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:]
> > > No, that isn't true. A change to the license which says you don't need to
> > > include source would prevent the bloody murderer from being a problem,
> > > just like a c
Hi Ken!
You wrote:
> > > consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal
> > > your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is
> > > nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute
> > > source, the license demanding you do so is fine.
> > >
6 matches
Mail list logo
