In message ,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:44:35 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".
Why do you think that my recipients will get you
In message ,
Andrew Dalke writes
I pointed out the quote from a copyright lawyer with a special interest in free
software who said that the GPL was ambiguous about sublicensing
and if a chain of licenses was required or not.
I see the GPL explicitly agrees with me, not Larry Rosen :-) !!!
Th
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> More precisely, the grant would need to say (words to the effect of)
> either:
>
>You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the following terms:
>foo, bar, baz.
>
> or:
>
>You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the terms of foobar license;
"Anthony W. Youngman" writes:
> As I said in another post, you're confusing the licence *grant* with
> the licence *itself*.
It might be clearer to say that the issue is a confusion between the
license grant versus the license terms.
> Let's say I write some software and - as I would - I stick
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> It's a law site, where SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM, Novell and Linux in
> general is getting thoroughly dissected. If you're not interested then fair
> enough, but copyright and the GPL in particular are very important there.
I have
Hi Anthony!
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:44:35 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>> Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
>>> them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".
>>Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3
>>only says that
In message <20091214220044.1cc797d6@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco
Poli writes
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:36:58 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
That's why, actually, given the choice of LGPL 2.1 or 3, much as I
haven't investigated 3 very much, I'll almost certainly prefer 3 to 2.1
becaus
In message <06db76b9-3d28-44ab-82c8-e23917bf3...@dalkescientific.com>,
Andrew Dalke writes
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
(And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of
emphasis on getting things right.)
Sorry, but I don't know what groklaw is, at
In message ,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".
Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3
only says that they will get your grant for _this_ License, i
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is,
> then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was
> blind.
Still, I have given references to Stallman, to the GNU pages, to the XEmacs
p
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:36:58 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
> That's why, actually, given the choice of LGPL 2.1 or 3, much as I
> haven't investigated 3 very much, I'll almost certainly prefer 3 to 2.1
> because it means other people CAN'T relicence my code :-)
Please note that adoptin
Hi Anthony!
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:22 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>Right, this is section 6 of GPLv2 of section 10 of GPLv3. Let's quote
>>the latter:
>>
>>10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
>>
>>Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> (And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of emphasis
> on getting things right.)
Sorry, but I don't know what groklaw is, at least, not enough to guess about
your interests in it. I'm contacting debian-legal becaus
In message ,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:24:36 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Let's say I write a load of code, and r
In message ,
Andrew Dalke writes
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message , Andrew Dalke
writes
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Here is relevant commentary in Rosen
In message <76e62a33-41da-414c-a485-7819eb35f...@dalkescientific.com>,
Andrew Dalke writes
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message
, Andrew
Dalke writes
I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit
it, and by doing so you are taking away user
16 matches
Mail list logo
