[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:02:25 +0100 |
I am cc:ing Alex so he can take part.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:
> Richard Stallman writes:
>
> > allowing GPLv2 and not GPLv3 is a very bad example. We should not
> > set a bad licensing example.
>
> Please get your lawyer to look at it. It was the need of XEmacs for a
> license compatible with the unnamed, unversioned documentation license
> we inherited from Lucid (which presumably inherited it from Emacs 18
> and Emacs 19) that inspired the multiple licensing. Alex wanted to
> generalize it, so the *intent* is that any license that grants the
> listed rights and requires that they be granted to those "downstream"
> of the licensee may be used. GPLv3 clearly qualifies by the intent.
>
> I am fairly sure that Alex would be happy to modify the permission
> notice based on a lawyer's advice on how to accomplish his intention.
>
> > In addition, I wonder about the other pages in that wiki have a
> > similar license.
>
> All pages in the wiki are licensed that way.
>
> I spot-checked one of the major programs distributed on the wiki, Drew
> Adams's "icicles". The pages describing the program say it is "GPL v2
> or later" although the pages have the standard permission notice for
> the wiki. The libraries themselves contain the standard permission
> notice, for "GPL v2 or later".
>
> So I don't think there is a general problem with programs; anything
> large enough to have a separate file probably has the standard
> notice. Snippets of code included directly in a page will have the
> page's license, of course, but AFAIK nobody using the wiki believes
> that the GPL is only permitted as version 2. (I understand that what
> a court says may vary; please help Alex get the legal advice he needs
> to accomplish his intention.)
>
>
>
>
>
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, (continued)
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, David Kastrup, 2009/11/26
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/26
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, Lennart Borgman, 2009/11/26
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/26
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, Richard Stallman, 2009/11/27
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/11/25
- Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs,
Lennart Borgman <=
Re: Bad choice of license in BzrForEmacsDevs, Giorgos Keramidas, 2009/11/25