ith keys is why that depends on the
use case. As user of commercial devices like company routers, firewalls and
such, which often are Linux based, I don't want them sealed by the vendor,
as well. An explicit statement is even worse than an implicit one (as in
the GPLv2, which has been tested
ater,
some say GPLv1.1 or later (e.g. the parport driver) and a few have
said "GPLv2 only". Now, I may rewrite those few "GPLv2 only" files, and
then I have a GPLv2-or later compatible linux-some.version-bp kernel. And
into this kernel, I can add code under GPLv3 (once the GPLv3 is ready and
there's code worth to add under GPLv3), which limits me to redistribute the
whole thing under GPLv3.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpvKinOal8dT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
uot;).
There are good reasons to follow the advice there, and those who did follow
the advice in the Linux kernel in the vast majority said "GPLv2 or later".
Verbatim copy without understanding? Or is it rather that the other people
who didn't follow the advice didn't read the GPL, and therefore understand
it even less ;-)?
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpAehWNc0zDy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
aw that was used before and has survived in countries who didn't let
Napoleon in (like the UK and the USA), it's slightly different. But a
contract or a license still is not a program where anything that isn't said
explicitely isn't said at all.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpzwPBHF6QnS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nd on
again doesn't fix it). That's why people complain loud about ATI drivers
not being open, and don't care that much about the Nvidia driver, which is
just as closed, but works.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpBnogBxibSw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
here simply is no Harald Welte in the US, who
goes after the violators.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpYtKZDs0RqT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
C, because these two basically consist of a
processor, some RAM, some flash, a harddisk, and a video driver.
What's true: We don't have the moral power to define *where* the software
goes, but we have the moral power to define *how* users can change the
software when they own the
isunderstandings" that are
appearing here. The GPL is not reflective (tit-for-tat), it's transient. If
there's a loop in the transient propagation, it becomes reflective through
the loop, but not by itself. This was the case in GPLv1, is the case in
GPLv2, and will be the case in G
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:39, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:23:20AM +0200, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > A number of kernel hacker deliberately want their work under GPLv2 only
> > (like Al Viro), and they are fully entitled to do that - but they must
> > announce
On Friday 15 June 2007 01:08, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 07:27:59 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > Where is the boundary between hard- and software?
>
> Software's the bit that's infinitely replicable at zero cost. Hardware
> tends not to be.
There&#
parties pass a few arguments, and indicate which way the judge possibly
would decide to help them settle fast. Settlement is way cheaper than a
court verdict, so most sane people choose to settle (unfortunately it's
often the insane people who go to court ;-).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If
hat unless he does a substantial change to the file, and also adds
a comment that this file is now GPLv2 only.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpN55KtOxbrM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
m, you don't, because exploiting loopholes is not "good faith".
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpQYxpKU1Fw7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
think
it's GPL version 1.1 (but the code is really v2 or later).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpJ2vpEXq2v9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
gal system might favor the "GPLv2 does not
allow tivoization" point of view, and in the USA, the legal sysem might do
the opposite.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpeNf8ZgQWRO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
hat you
need to provide all the scripts and stuff you use to make it easy for you.
Come on, *READ* the GPL, before you argue.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpjFqMwudwII.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I haven't seen GPL citations from the Linus-fanboy curve,
only suggestions that the GPL "does not say something" which it clearly
does.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpugqyOJJ0dG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
tree would
> just be idiotic when there is such a clear COPYING file in the root of
> the kernel tree.
It's a personal comment from Linus, and not clear in any way. Do it the way
the file COPYING itself suggests. It's not "idiotic", it's the most obvious
way to do it.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
pgpsHYRPWrD70.pgp
Description: PGP signature
obvious GPLv2-only code to
relicense it as a whole under GPLv3, you need a good asbestos suite, a good
lawyer, and good arguments. But let's assume Microsoft really succeeds with
its patent FUD against Linux, and the only way out is GPLv3, when will
opinions here change?
--
Be
19 matches
Mail list logo
