On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:24:29PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> However you need to clarify the licence first I think. Linux is GPLv2,
> your document only allows use of GPL with "GPL" works - not GPL v2 works ?
The license defines "GPL" as "a version of the GNU General Public
License or th
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 03:24:29PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> It would also be good if someone clarified whether 6 and 7 are intended
> to combine so you can take contributed patches and put them in your own
> proprietary version. As a non-lawyer the intent is not clear at all.
6 and 7 ar
On 07/25/2016 09:32 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know really it is compatible with GPLv2,
> and if it is, I'm not sure the reason why we need another license.
> AFAICS the license terms, most of parts looks reasonable. I just concern
> clause 8, after fifteen years, i
