- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
In article <4790C15A.10400(a)gmail.com> Gary Foster <gary.foster(a)gmail.com>
writes:
Although it could've been phrased much more tactfully, the man
does have
a point.
What point? The only point I see is a need to learn some basic logic!
The OP wrote:
>> Actually my preference would be to have it read "GPL V2
or later" to
David wrote:
> It is nonsensical to pretend to permit releasing "GPL v2 or
later" while
> barring a release as "GPL v3 or later", since "GPL v3 or later"
is
> covered by "GPL v2 or later".
which is itself nonsense. If the OP wishes to retain the freedom of
his users to use the code under v2, a "GPL v3 or later" release must
be forbidden, since it does not permit the users to adopt v2.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
On Jan 18, 2008 10:11 AM, Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
The OP wrote:
>>> Actually my preference would be to have it read "GPL V2 or later"
to
David wrote:
>> It is nonsensical to pretend to permit releasing "GPL v2 or later"
while
>> barring a release as "GPL v3 or later", since "GPL v3 or
later" is
>> covered by "GPL v2 or later".
which is itself nonsense. If the OP wishes to retain the freedom of
his users to use the code under v2, a "GPL v3 or later" release must
be forbidden, since it does not permit the users to adopt v2.
Kean has expressed a wish to license his work to the public under the
GPL v2 or later. We, the XEmacs project, wish to license the
collection of all XEmacs source files under the GPL v3 or later.
There is no conflict there. We accept Kean's license, and choose to
exercise the "or later" clause instead of the "GPL v2" clause. Doing
so does not restrict anyone else from distributing Kean's files under
the terms of GPL v2, nor does it invalidate the XEmacs releases that
have been made under the terms of GPL v2 during the years since Kean
first wrote that code.
Kean, I think you should study up on GPL v3, since that is the license
under which the entire project will be distributed to the public.
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Friday, 18 January
Fri, 18 Jan
9:53 p.m.
New subject: XEmacs and GPLv3
Julian Bradfield writes:
In article <4790C15A.10400(a)gmail.com> Gary Foster
<gary.foster(a)gmail.com> writes:
>Although it could've been phrased much more tactfully, the man does have
>a point.
What point? The only point I see is a need to learn some basic logic!
The Law has its logic whereof Logic does not know.
-- with apologies to Blaise Pascal, I believe. The original epigram
also applies in this case, as I point out elsewhere.
Let's stop beating up on people who know what they want but don't
express it in legalese.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6153
days inactive
6153
days old
2 comments
3 participants
tags (0)
participants (3)
-
Jerry James -
Julian Bradfield -
Stephen J. Turnbull