In message <200909221742.07152.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
(That's why, actually, I believe that sticking a v2-only notice on code
that the author licenced v2+ is a GPL violation - you are adding
restrictions by denying the recipient the choice of licence.)
You might be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 22. September 2009 11:16:58 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <200909212115.37013.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>
> >Both are right: They don't agree to additional
> >FREEDOMS in the sense that the "user" i
In message <200909212115.37013.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
Oops - haven't you got that backwards? If they put it under v2 ONLY,
aren't they saying they don't agree to any additional FREEDOMS
Both are right: They don't agree to additional
FREEDOMS in the sense that the "u
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Graham Percival wrote:
> Now, at some point, there will be some important bug fix or new
> feature in guile 1.9, which is only published under v3. *Then* we'd
> have problems... but wait! If guile is truly under LGPL, and not
> GPL, then there should be no problems. I mean, if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 21. September 2009 18:49:18 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <200909201334.52063.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>
> >The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which
> >both add addit
In message <200909201334.52063.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which
both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have.
On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code und
Graham Percival wrote:
> I would have thought that
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-09/msg00438.html
> was right up your alley.
Yep. I was having a bit of a look through what's there to see what
would be involved. I'll see what I can do ...
__
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 08:18:14PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by
> > people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50%
> > of people who say "hey, I want to help out" never do anything!).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 10:11:54 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > No, because LGPL has additional restrictions. The problem is not that we
> > would be violating guile's license, but lilypond's license does not allow
> > linking to a LGPLv3 library.
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use
> guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond
> then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we have a problem with freetype,
> which
> is FTL (BSD with advertising
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 09:26:25AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 09:10:20 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > > Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't
> > > use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So,
> > > lil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 09:10:20 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:56AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> > > Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:56AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> > Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be GPL -- but that's only for
> > the current development release (i.e. 1.9.x). 1.8.x is still under
> > LGPLv2+.
>
> Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond
> can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with
> GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we
> have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising
> clause, thus incompatible wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> > If you really want to keep on doing copyright stuff, then I'd
> > suggest that you look into the licenses of the projects which
> > lilypond *links* to. Stuff like ghostscript doesn'
Graham Percival wrote:
> There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by
> people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50%
> of people who say "hey, I want to help out" never do anything!).
> And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots
> of
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:08:34AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who
> wrote what parts of Lilypond.
As long as we know who contributed to lilypond (that's a separate
question), knowing exactly "who wrote what" is only useful if
Op zondag 13-09-2009 om 23:00 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Anthony W.
Youngman:
> they will (presumably already)
Please do not speak for me.
> have switched the licence on their contributions.
Also, please do not make any suggestions or hints
of any [individual] license changes, and esp. not
o
Graham Percival wrote:
> I know you all want to rush ahead on this, but this is one issue
> which will not be rushed. Later today, I have the choice of
> working on GUB and dealing with this thread; I will prioritize GUB
> (and therefore making releases, particularly ones with fixed OSX
> 10.5 for
In message
, Han-Wen
Nienhuys writes
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Anthony W. Youngman
wrote:
So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might
not
be able to solve it properly any more?
Nope. My idea is basically saying "let's face reality. Some people will
neve
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 09:36:47PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Please don't speak for me. I am not opposed to GPL v3, but I don't
> want to be involved in any of the legal (or
> laymen-people-interpreting-law) and bikeshedding discussions that this
> 'upgrade' has to involve. Ie. please rea
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Anthony W. Youngman
wrote:
>> So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might
>> not
>> be able to solve it properly any more?
>>
> Nope. My idea is basically saying "let's face reality. Some people will
> never agree to "or later" so let
In message <200909140059.35325.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
Am Montag, 14. September 2009 00:00:28 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
DON'T track "whether they support switching the licence". Because if
they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on
their c
In message <4aad7567.5060...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Thanks nevertheless for your useful suggestions -- I hope this email
clears up what I do and don't intend. I'll update the licensing part of
the spreadsheet accordingly.
Sounds good.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
(*) If I _was_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 14. September 2009 00:00:28 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> DON'T track "whether they support switching the licence". Because if
> they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on
> their contributions.
I don't think so.
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I think you don't understand copyright properly ...
>
> DON'T track "whether they support switching the licence". Because if
> they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on
> their contributions.
... but we have no records of that switch, becaus
In message <4aac29f2.1000...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
I'm then entering these details into a Google Docs spreadsheet (which
I'll share with anyone who requests it). The same spreadsheet also
contains a complete list of contributors (from Francisco's .mailmap) and
a note on whether
2009/9/13 Joseph Wakeling :
> The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who
> wrote what parts of Lilypond. So, for each code file, I'm using git
> shortlog to get the list of contributors (thanks to Francisco's .mailmap
> file this is much simplified) and then using gitk
Hello everyone,
A word or more about the action plan to deal with the
copyright/licensing issue raised earlier.
The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who
wrote what parts of Lilypond. So, for each code file, I'm using git
shortlog to get the list of contributors (th
29 matches
Mail list logo
