On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:04:21AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >Unless you own the copyright the GPL does not give you permission to
> >relicense.
> >Stating that you may only use the GPLv2 changes the current license and is
> >just
> >as forbidden as deciding you want to re-release it as BSD licen
What do people think about the status of #144984? My first thought was
to agree with the submitter that it's non-free. On the other hand, the
GPL says:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:04:21AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >Unless you own the copyright the GPL does not give you permission to
>> >relicense.
>> >Stating that you may only use the GPLv2 changes the curr
>The reason is always the same: trust no one.
A change by the FSF to the GPL is more likely to close a loophole
than open one. Honestly, if you trust no one, I don't see why you're
releasing the code; large parts of the world live under legal systems
that don't care about your copyright, either i
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:23:21AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> What do people think about the status of #144984? My first thought was
> to agree with the submitter that it's non-free. On the other hand, the
> GPL says:
> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
>
Scripsit Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What do people think about the status of #144984? My first thought was
> to agree with the submitter that it's non-free.
I agree, too. (Just for the record, the bug reads:
| The htp Copyright in contained in the Distribution section of file
| usr/sha
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:04:40AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> DFSG requires that distributors be free to charge MORE than just
> 'material costs'; they must also be free to sell CDs at a profit. Yes,
> this license fails the DFSG.
No, the DFSG doesn't require that.
The DFSG says:
"The licen
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:34:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A license which forbade selling the software by itself, but permitted
> selling it in aggregate with other software, would abide by the letter
> of the DFSG. Of course, in the real world no one licenses software this
> way because
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:34:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:04:40AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > DFSG requires that distributors be free to charge MORE than just
> > 'material costs'; they must also be free to sell CDs at a profit. Yes,
> > this license fails
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:34:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A license which forbade selling the software by itself, but permitted
> selling it in aggregate with other software, would abide by the letter
> of the DFSG. Of course, in the real world no one licenses software this
> way becaus
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 06:56:00PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:34:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > A license which forbade selling the software by itself, but permitted
> > selling it in aggregate with other software, would abide by the letter
> > of the DFSG.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:37:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The one-sentence quote in the bug report doesn't give me enough
> information to substantiate this assertion, but if you're right, then I
> would say that the software is not DFSG-free.
Here is the complete section of the html do
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 08:51:11PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Here is the complete section of the html documentation concerning
> licence (/usr/share/htp/ref/intro.htm):
>
> Distribution
>
> htp is a public domain utility.
[followed by copyright license terms]
This person is deeply confus
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:08:25AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >Um, he's saying that if a program says "you may use version 2 or later", you
> >can't change that to "you must use version 2", except in your own code,
> >since that's changing the license.
>
> Um, then what's the point of clause 9 at a
14 matches
Mail list logo
