Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Nishit Dave wrote: What you are pointing at (inclusive of compatibility) is the realm of Sec.7, specifically subsection b(4). Additional Requirements, doc. We could call this cluebat v2, but let's call it a discussion draft. And settle this verbal jousting. Please, go figure. We are talk

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

On 1/9/07, Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The clauses regarding availability of source when a service is offered over the network is a *optional compatible clause*. So again GPLv3 makes absolutely no difference in this case by default. You are quoting a obsolete article. Read the *cur

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Atul; Sorry, it became so confusing. Its my fault. I thought that you are going to ship a software/package with GPL. While the standard GPL is not fitting your requirement hence you are in process of drafting a "Public Lisense". There are people who use a bit changed Public Lisence to make it fro

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

No problem, Yagnesh, I am not about to publish anything under a changed GPL. Regards, -- Atul Nene (atul dot nene at gmail dot com) http://www.atulnene.com -- __ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List: (plug-mail@plug.org

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 14:13 +0530, Atul Nene wrote: > > Thanks Sridhar for clarifying further. When I said 'give back to > owner', I meant 'give back to community' since, my understanding is > that GPLed software ceases to belong a person and starts belonging to > the community. Not necessary . ch

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Hi Yagnesh, On 1/9/07, Yagnesh Desai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mr Atul; Any reason that your are not using the GPL text provided at gnu.org. It also says how to frame the GPL. If I understand you correctly, you are asking me why I did not use the GPL text to answer Nilesh's question about G

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Nishit Dave wrote: On 1/9/07, Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: GPlv3 makes no difference in this regard. How about just reading http://gplv3.fsf.org instead of speculating? Cluebat: http://pcburn.com/article.php?sid=1593 Original attribution: http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?s

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

On 1/9/07, Atul Nene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Sridhar for clarifying further. When I said 'give back to owner', I meant 'give back to community' since, my understanding is that GPLed software ceases to belong a person and starts belonging to the community. The GPL (and other licenses

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

On 1/9/07, Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: GPlv3 makes no difference in this regard. How about just reading http://gplv3.fsf.org instead of speculating? Cluebat: http://pcburn.com/article.php?sid=1593 Original attribution: http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/15/0331201

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Part III Recently, there was some controversy whether (small-sized) creators/distributors of say Knoppix or SimplyMepis should be distributing the source code under the GPL, in addition to their own modifications, and this is a big grey area. AFAIK, there is a compromise

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Part II, 8th Jan 2007: - For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Mr Atul; Any reason that your are not using the GPL text provided at gnu.org. It also says how to frame the GPL. Is there anything which your want different from the popular GPL? Regards Yagnesh -- __ Pune GNU/Linux Users Grou

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

OK, I am reposting my bounced mail, in three parts. Part I of 3, 8th Jan 2007: Before we discuss this further, some links: The GNU GPL FAQ How to use the GNU GPL for your own programs An

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

> Yes. In addition, if the person who downloads software provided under > GPL and makes any changes to the source code, then he should give back > those changes to the original owner. I believe the correct wording would be 'make the changes available to all the recipients of the modified software

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Nishit Dave wrote: Continued from previous post... Recently, there was some controversy whether (small-sized) creators/distributors of say Knoppix or SimplyMepis should be distributing the source code under the GPL, in addition to their own modifications, and this is a big grey area. AFAIK, the

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Continued from previous post... Recently, there was some controversy whether (small-sized) creators/distributors of say Knoppix or SimplyMepis should be distributing the source code under the GPL, in addition to their own modifications, and this is a big grey area. AFAIK, there is a compromise r

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

श्रीधर नारायण दैठणकर wrote: On Monday 08 January 2007 17:36, Yagnesh Desai wrote: No. You can add a feature and publish it on web, without sending it to linus. If you dont distribute it to a third party, you can do private modifications and not even publish it. What you cannot do is cal

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

On Monday 08 January 2007 17:36, Yagnesh Desai wrote: > Dear Mr Shridhar; > > My understanding is that the changes need to go back to > the originator. Not necessarily. Only if the change should be merged with the mainstream. > (That's how contribution to Linux Kernel went back to Linus > and he

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

tware. Yagnesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - To: Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List From: श्रीधर नारायण दैठणकर <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 01/08/2007 01:17PM Subject: Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL On Monday 08 January 2007 12:56, Atul Nene wrote:

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

This link might of help to you. http://www.sitepoint.com/article/public-license-explained -- Regards Varun Mehta http://varun.cjb.net *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* imagination is more important then knowledge *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* --

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 01/07/2007 11:53PM Subject: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL hi there I am a bit confused with the terms of GPL What i know is that if a SW is reg. under GPL and if the SW is allowed to be dwnl then the owner must also give the source

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

On Monday 08 January 2007 12:56, Atul Nene wrote: > Hi Nilesh, > > On 1/7/07, nilesh deo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am a bit confused with the terms of GPL > > What i know is that if a SW is reg. under GPL and if the SW is > > allowed to be dwnl then the owner must also give the source code

Re: [PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Hi Nilesh, On 1/7/07, nilesh deo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am a bit confused with the terms of GPL What i know is that if a SW is reg. under GPL and if the SW is allowed to be dwnl then the owner must also give the source code along with it, now is there any more to it ? Yes. In addition,

[PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

hi there I am a bit confused with the terms of GPL What i know is that if a SW is reg. under GPL and if the SW is allowed to be dwnl then the owner must also give the source code along with it, now is there any more to it ? bye ppl -- _