Hi Anthony!
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:46:16 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>Ah, so you changed your position. Well, it doesn't matter whether the
>>license grant is part of the work or not. If it is, it can be modified
>>according to GPL. If it is not, GPL doesn't require to distribute it.
>
In message <7fdf4c21068c1acb3ed732c0cf862c1e.chere...@mccme.ru>,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:03:45 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's no
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:47:29 +0300 Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
[...]
> Actually I'm also convinced now (more or less) that it's NOT a grey
> area. Everybody preserves full license grants for upstream
> dual-licensed projects just because it's The Right Thing, not because
> it's legally required
Hi Anthony!
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:03:45 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
> Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
> licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-)
>>
Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-)
>>>
Hi Anthony!
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:33:41 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>> Basically, you can choose which licence you want to apply to YOU. But
>>> you pass on my package as a whole (including my permission to choose
>>> which licence). So that's where your recipients get the same choices
In message <65986059fd940d55852a9fc4350fadd5.chere...@mccme.ru>,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:48 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's no
Hi Anthony!
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:48 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>> Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
>>> licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-)
>>Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-)
>>Let's con
In message <9f4091d0c9afc9ede2ecc519bd6830bb.chere...@mccme.ru>,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Basically, you can choose which licence you want to apply to YOU. But
you pass on my package as a whole (including my permission to choose
which licence). So that's where your recipients get the same cho
In message <9f4091d0c9afc9ede2ecc519bd6830bb.chere...@mccme.ru>,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
licence (which you're not allowed to do) it's not an unaltered copy :-)
Please don't not mix licenses and license grants:-)
Let'
Hi Anthony!
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:34:27 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>In section 10 (GPLv3):
>>
>>10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
>>
>>Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
>> receives a license from the original licensors, to run, m
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:06:41 +0100 Andrew Dalke wrote:
[...]
> The best counter example
> is the GFDL->Creative Commons relicensing, when the original GFDL's
> license grant is essentially identical to the GPLs.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your statement about the presumed
"essential iden
Andrew Dalke wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL
> > would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.)
>
> Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also
> included the book title and author na
In message <20091217024135.af5a9f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
writes
Andrew Dalke wrote:
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 au
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> This part followed "if it's the book I think it is, then I already
> have read it". Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the
> book linked, but elsewhere in the book read.
Indeed. BTW, I should have interpreted the original phrase as "read
th
Andrew Dalke wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> > Read it for yourself, make sure you've go
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file?
Yes. Either it provides validation capabilities they don't need, or they have
some hand-written code to deal with the parts that were automated because of
having the schema aro
On Thu Dec 17 00:06, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> The feedback here has helped. The CML maintainers are going to split
> off the CC-BY-ND into another file which can go into non-free, the
> rest of the JUMBO code will clarified to be "Apache 2.0", the CML
> developers are going through all their code to c
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name
> under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I
> don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write
> his format, however. A secon
On Tue Dec 15 00:42, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> How do I interpret this LICENSE.txt? The Artistic License 2.0 allows
> relicensing to the GPL. I'm well and clear about that (though there's
> still a subtle question of if it allows relicensing to the LGPL).
>
> However, if I use clause 4(c)(ii) to switc
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
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 release it with a notice saying
> "this
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's book "Open Source Lice
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 rights.
>>
>> Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
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 rights.
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Let's sa
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I may (well) be wrong, but I've always understood the INTENT of the artistic
> licence to be "BSD plus a trademark licence".
It has some clauses which are decidedly non-BSD-ish. See for example section
(8) of the Artistic License 2.0.
I
[ on combining LGPL and Artistic Licenses in a single JAR file
as part of a Java library distribution.]
On Dec 12, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I believe that neither of these licences specify the licence of the code
> they are linked with, so this will be alright. The resultin
In message <20091212142624.gl10...@matthew.ath.cx>, Matthew Johnson
writes
My understanding is that mixing the Artistic License and LGPL 2.1 is
not possible. I base this primarily on the FSF statement that they
consider the Artistic License to be incompatible with the GPL. I have
not found a sta
On Fri Dec 11 22:42, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> There seems to be a licensing problem with some of the chemistry software
> packages, at least one of which is included in Debian. I'm working with a few
> of the package developers to see if there really is a problem. We need some
> better advice than
There seems to be a licensing problem with some of the chemistry software
packages, at least one of which is included in Debian. I'm working with a few
of the package developers to see if there really is a problem. We need some
better advice than I can find.
Short version:
- Can an LGPL 2.1 JA
44 matches
Mail list logo
