On Nov 26, 10:43 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Joyner wrote:
> > This is less than what google or sun does. However, GAP does nothing like
> > this.
> > On the other hand, GAP is organized around modules (often single-authored
> > and sometimes with non-GPL'd licenses), wit
On Nov 26, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> David Joyner wrote:
>> This is less than what google or sun does. However, GAP does
>> nothing like this.
>> On the other hand, GAP is organized around modules (often single-
>> authored
>> and sometimes with non-GPL'd licenses), with a smal
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Linux is a huge open-source project to which lots of huge corporations
> are committing code, as well as single people. What do they do? What
> about other projects that have lots of people committing code?
This O
David Joyner wrote:
> This is less than what google or sun does. However, GAP does nothing like
> this.
> On the other hand, GAP is organized around modules (often single-authored
> and sometimes with non-GPL'd licenses), with a small number of people
> contributing to the kernel. I don't think M
This is less than what google or sun does. However, GAP does nothing like this.
On the other hand, GAP is organized around modules (often single-authored
and sometimes with non-GPL'd licenses), with a small number of people
contributing to the kernel. I don't think Maxima does this either. But
as
Hi there,
what is the practice w.r.t. this kind of stuff in other big open-source
software projects? Quite honestly, I find it rather worrying that so much
legal stuff is suddenly involved in writing a simple patch. If at all
possible I would love to avoid this.
Martin
--
name: Martin Albr
Fixed now.
Thanks!
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Alfredo Portes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This line (third paragraph) needs to be changed:
>
> You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
> present and future Contributions submitted to Google. Except for the
> li
This line (third paragraph) needs to be changed:
You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
present and future Contributions submitted to Google. Except for the
license granted herein to Google and recipients of software
distributed by Google, You reserve all right, title
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:41 AM, koffie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As we are now bussy discussing copyright and licence issues. (How) is
> the google CLA licenced?
> I.e. is it legal to make an almost litteral copy of it and use it for
> sage purposes ;)
There is a link at the bottom of
http
As we are now bussy discussing copyright and licence issues. (How) is
the google CLA licenced?
I.e. is it legal to make an almost litteral copy of it and use it for
sage purposes ;)
Maarten
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@goo
On Nov 26, 2008, at 8:02 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 4:43 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I know of no code which in Sage which is GPLv2 only. William or
>> Michael, please
>> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Yes, as I mentioned above there is none.
>
>> I think that code wh
On Nov 26, 4:47 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nope, there isn't. We want GPL V2+ or compatible. If you prefer BSD
> > that if fine too, obviously. GPL V2 only code will not be merged in
> > the Sage library - we had that discussion a while back and all people
> > who submitted
On Nov 26, 4:43 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know of no code which in Sage which is GPLv2 only. William or Michael,
> please
> correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, as I mentioned above there is none.
> I think that code which is GPLv2 (only) is not GPLv2+ compatible,
> since GP
On Nov 26, 2008, at 7:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:36 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> My only real concern is the specific statement about GPL V2 (or
>> later)
>> in
>> what David wrote. While my test suite I'm licensing under BSD
>> (which is
>> stated at the top
I know of no code which in Sage which is GPLv2 only. William or Michael, please
correct me if I am wrong.
I think that code which is GPLv2 (only) is not GPLv2+ compatible,
since GPL2+ says the
modifications can be released under either GPL2 or GPL3 (at your choice).
"GPLv2 only" restricts that ch
On Nov 26, 4:36 am, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My only real concern is the specific statement about GPL V2 (or later)
> in
> what David wrote. While my test suite I'm licensing under BSD (which is
> stated at the top of each .sage file), I'm not a fan of GPL V3, so I'd
> likely
Agreed. It is basically a contract saying that you, in exchange for
using the trac
service maintained by Sage (I used the "Sage Foundation" since AFAIK it is a
legal entity), agree to license your posts in a GPLv2+ compatible way
(or else mark
your post clearly as "Not a contribution" or "Submitte
> On Nov 26, 12:44 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 10:38 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> root wrote:
Standard industry practice on half a million open source projects
does not include an "I have signed over my copyright on this
particular
>>
Yes, it seems better to be safe than sorry here and I think David's
suggestion is a good one. I'm not sure how vigilant people have been
about updating the author sections but that would be a good thing to
have right as well.
-M. Hampton
On Nov 26, 12:44 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 25, 10:38 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
> > Standard industry practice on half a million open source projects
> > does not include an "I have signed over my copyright on this particular
> > patch" button. A general copyright judgement making the current practice
root wrote:
> Standard industry practice on half a million open source projects
> does not include an "I have signed over my copyright on this particular
> patch" button. A general copyright judgement making the current practice
> illegal would wipe out the free software movement overnight (excep
>...[snip]...
>... Van Lindberg points
>out implicit licenses are not legally binding and presents a legal
>horror story of one guy "contributing" code he do not own to an OS
>sourceforge project, only to be bankrupted by lawsuits and SF
>being required to
22 matches
Mail list logo
