Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

1 participants
5793 discussions

Off-topic: Open Mac OS X???
by Rick Langschultz 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

Hello, I was wondering if someone was interested in writing an open source version of Mac OS X. I know about Darwin already so please don't comment about it. I was thinking that Darwin could be a base for this project. I figure it could start out like a 10.0 version with minimal application support to allow Mac OS X binaries to run. Maybe on either PPC or x86 but even better x86_64. Tell me what you think.

7 8

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 04:32:25PM -0500, Rick Langschultz wrote: > I understand the terms and conditions of all of the > licenses about open source software, but this is out > of left field. Please be a little more specific in > the details why you have composed this email. Many > of us don't use IRC, at least I don't. So please > explain what is going on. That is just courtesy. > <snip> Search the list for "HostiliX". The whole thing started on the list with an unsolicited E-mail from another project informing us that they were essentially forking ReactOS. Much discussion about the topic has followed those initial E-mails. -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:19:38PM +0200, Oliver Schneider wrote: > > > Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a > > business can take your code, make a product, and > > release that product with whatever (sub)license > > they want. This happens all of the time, and is > > the major "boon" of the BSD. > Actually I cannot find this anywhere in the license. > But I'll believe you ;) Google for: "incorporate BSD code" proprietary OR "closed source" And skim. > > This also means that BSD code could > > (theoretically) become extinct in the "free" word; > > e.g., if all versions of the code could be snapped > > up by proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors > > disappeared. This is one of the reasons people > > choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that > > the source stays open and (additionally) that > > changes get fed back to the community if the > > binaries are distributed. > That's exactly why I carefully choose my license > beforehand. Some of my codes are GPL (currently 2 > projects). These are things where the efforts > should not be used "commercially" (usually the GPL > keeps away companies in the Wintel-world) by others. Then you must understand -- when companies USE it commercially, they are sublicensing your code under their own EULA. They fulfill their obligation to you (i.e., put in the notices), and then have free reign to relicense the code as they see fit, so long as they continue to fulfill your requirements. > > Here is the text of the BSD license: > I know it. But which part tells me someone can > sublicense it? Which part of the following statements says I can plug in a toaster? * You may use this electrical socket if you conform to all of the following rules. * You agree not to draw more than 20A of current. * You agree to use proper external grounding on all equipment that is plugged in. The BSD license is exactly the same; very open-ended. I could turn around and make a night-light with a pass-trough plug in that stated: * You may use this electrical socket if you conform to all of the following rules. * You agree not draw more than 2A * You agree never to turn the light on * You agree to turn over your first-born child to Evil NiteLite inc. And it wouldn't be breaing the rules of the first statement at all. > You know the problem here is the following: > - No, I have no problem with projects using GPL to > use my BSDLed code > - Yes, I have a problem if my BSDLed code is > published by them under the terms of the GPL. > Because this means they can restrict the rights I > have granted to the licensees. I think this is not > possible like this! Well, that's how BSD works everywhere. That's how companys can sub-license it into their own code, and that's how the GPL works with it, too. An excerpt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing> Traditionally, Linux associated software is licensed under the GPL, whilst BSD derivatives often use the BSD license. Code licensed under the BSD license can be relicensed under the GPL (the BSD license is said to be "GPL-compatible") without securing the consent of all original authors; but code under the GPL cannot be relicensed under the BSD license without securing the consent of all original authors, as the BSD license does not necessarily require the source code to be again freely available. > If I understand the cited paragraphs of the GPL > correctly it means that the code parts can be used > but do not become GPLed. That's my view from reading > it. See GPL section 2.b: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, *to be licensed as a whole (at no charge to all third parties) under the terms of this License.* (emphasis mine) The whole thing. Including your BSD code. ALL of it has to be licensed as GPL to be distributed. > > So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed > > by pretty much everybody, and it can also be > > "converted" to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible'). > "GPL-compatible" is okay with me (that's OpenSource > ;) ... "GPLed" - i.e. restricted by GPL - is not. > > > I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with > > one stone on this one. > (-: We Germans kill two flies instead of birds :-P Actually, that's a good idea ;) > > Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that > > we could implicitly terminate any of these > > licenses even on suspicion (i.e., guilty until > > proven innocent), and that just doesn't make > > sense. > That's an interesting view. > > > Von: Royce Mitchell III > > Sounds to me the most prudent course of action > > would be a new version of the GPL license which > > clarifies this particular bit of confusion. > This is being worked on currently (AFAIK). They want > to make it much simpler so non-native speakers can > understand it without a PhD from a law school ;) Which will be really hard, since the GPL is one of the clearest mid-sized licenses I've ever read. It crams a lot of complexity into very easy-to- understand, clear, specific terms. The "appropriate" ambiguity is a very unfortunate oversight :/. -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone on this one. On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:25:49PM +0200, Oliver Schneider wrote: > > Quandary wrote: > > > > > 2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice > > > must be displayed. It does not define what > > > appropriate means. It does *not* say, anywhere, > > > that the copyright notice cannot be modified. > > > > we as the copyright holders decide what's > > appropriate See below... > > Not only this. I believe that the meaning of this > paragraph *implies* that the copyright information > cannot be removed or replaced by anyone except the > copyright holder(s). And if you come and add some > code that you can add you copyright *without* > removing other's copyright(s). But I am not a lawyer > :o) > And that's my point exactly -- you'd need a lawyer to interpret that, and ultimately it's the judge who makes the final decision as to what the "real" interpretation or meaning is (at least it's that way in the US). The more legal precidence and explicit laws you can find to support an interpretation, the better chance you can convince a judge to take your point of view. Really, the lawyers job is to give you a best guess as to what he thinks he can convince that judge of -- but I for one lack the experience required to make such a guesstimate ;). In any case, the basic premise still holds: until we can *prove* (or have a high chance of convincing a juge) that the copyright change isn't appropriate, it should be considered appropriate by default. Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that we could implicitly terminate any of these licenses even on suspicion (i.e., guilty until proven innocent), and that just doesn't make sense. -- Travis Always err on the side of caution __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 07:48:44PM +0200, Oliver Schneider wrote: > > Not quite, no. The GPL says that if you use GPL > > code, everything that you release that uses that > > GPL code must also be GPL. Thus (BSD + LGPL + GPL) > > -> GPL when it's distributed. BSD must be > > sublicensed, and LGPL must have it's GPL license > > conversion excercised. You no longer have the full > > BSD rights in the distributed code anymore, if you > > download it all as a whole. > Perhaps I've misunderstood something, but I for > instance publish my sources under BSDL (and other > liberal licenses) because it is not as viral as the > GPL. Therefore I would surely not agree that someone > is allowed to "sublicense" code which I > intentionally published under BSDL to give the > licensee as much freedom as possible. Actually, > since the GPL is too restrictive (i.e. "viral") it > violates rights the author granted to the users of > his BSDLed code. Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a business can take your code, make a product, and release that product with whatever (sub)license they want. This happens all of the time, and is the major "boon" of the BSD. This also means that BSD code could (theoretically) become extinct in the "free" word; e.g., if all versions of the code could be snapped up by proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors disappeared. This is one of the reasons people choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that the source stays open and (additionally) that changes get fed back to the community if the binaries are distributed. > > Can you enlighten me what makes you think that > BSDLed code can be "sublicensed", please! > Here is the text of the BSD license: Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER> All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Note GPL clauses 6 and 7: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. Note that the only case where both the obligations of the GPL and BSD licenses can be met is if the BSD source files have the BSD header (as required) AND an overriding GPL notice (which is not disallowed by the BSD license). In this manner, both licenses are conformed to, and the only serious potential for conflict is the "advertisement clause" (having to put explicit things in the documentation). Because the source code of the file must be made available (according to the GPL) the second clause of the BSD license is fulfilled, since the notice is part of the "materials provided with the distribution" (even if not immediately). So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed by pretty much everybody, and it can also be "converted" to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible'). -- Travis IANAL. Talk to one if you have need for true legal counsil. Please don't break my legs, anyone ;). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:15:30PM -0500, Royce Mitchell III wrote: <snip> > Sounds to me the most prudent course of action would > be a new version of the GPL license which clarifies > this particular bit of confusion Try to comment on that for GPLv3... if you can find where it's being officially discussed. -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:22:18AM -0700, magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote: > I meaing when we are printing out a copyright note > and that copyright note must be intact or the > copyright string. they are not allown to change it. The license does not say this. > see paragraph 2.c and reactos is interactiv. 2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice must be displayed. It does not define what appropriate means. It does *not* say, anywhere, that the copyright notice cannot be modified. > and you for not remove or modify any copyright under > runtime. I'm sorry, but your logic is patently false. The license in no way states that you cannot alter the copyright notice. It states only that you *must show an appropriate notice*. That means showing no notice would be wrong, but showing an altered notice is not (in and of itself) wrong. This could be wrong under copyright law, but the license does not in any way forbid it. > I piss off for hotlix have change the runtime > copyright notes. And I can understand your frustration; I think it's completely justified and warranted. > sublicen some dll are wines and are under lgpl > therefor thuese this licen become a sublicen to > reactos. Not true. LGPL is a DUAL license (both GPL and LGPL). See section 3 of the LGPL. When taking an LGPL library and using it as GPL, it is not a sub-license -- it is a separate license that you are allowed to use *in stead of* the LGPL. Someone taking your GPL source code and using it in a separate project, also released under the GPL, is not sub-licensing your code either. The code is available to that project's end-users under your license -- you license your code directly to HostiliX's (or anyone else's) end-users as GPL code. There is no sub-license involved, period. > and gpl say any sublicen part of source code. the > sublicen for not be chaning. that meaning lgpl can > not become gpl Yes it can. See section 3 of the LGPL. > for we are realing wine code back as > lgpl. Here's how it works. You bring in LGPL code. You modify the LGPL code. It's all still LGPL. You release the LGPL code back to Wine, everything is fine. You go to release it with your GPL code and, oops, incompatibility with the GPL! At that point, you invoke the second license (LGPL section 3) and treat the code as GPL. Then boom, everything works out fine. There is no sub-licensing. There is dual licensing, and that's not the same thing. > therefor can they not take thuse dll or other > part of source in ros comes under diffent licen and > change it. for the main licen forbit it. > > see paragraph 4 But they aren't changing the license; they are using the GPL. I'll say it again: *no sub-licensing happens*. To prove your points, you need to do one of the following: * Name/show the non-GPL license they are using * Show where a copyright notice used to print, and now does not print *at all*. Double sigh. -- Travis > > > Quoting Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com>: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:24:04AM -0700, > > magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I still alot pissoff hotlix they are still > > > breaking gpl > > > > I also don't particularly like what they are doing > > but I don't think that they are breaking the GPL. > > > > > see GPL Licen paragraph 2.c > > > If the modified program normally reads commands > > > interactively when run, you must cause it, when > > > started running for such interactive use in the > > > most ordinary way, to print or display an > > > announcement > > > > (emphasis) > > > including an appropriate copyright notice and a > > > notice that there is no warranty (or else, > > > saying that you provide a warranty) and that > > > users may redistribute the program under these > > > conditions, and telling the user how to view a > > > copy of this License. > > (/emphasis) > > > > > (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive > > > but does not normally print such an > > > announcement, your work based on the Program is > > > not required to print an announcement.) > > > > > > > > > Hotlix have replace there copyright note on > > > every dll and exe files at run time. ReactOS are > > > interactive when it start and therefore are you > > > not allown to change the copyright note. > > > > Sorry, but you're making a logical jump. The > > license above says that the modified program must > > display an *appropriate* copyright notice -- it > > does not say that the notice can't be changed. > > Your definition of appropriate (i.e., saying the > > original dev's name) may not be the legal > > definition (e.g., the most significant > > contributor, the latest contributor, the second > > developer's third-neice-twice-removed's > > boyfriend's dog, or whatever). So, from the checklist: > > > > 1. Do they print a copyright notice that is > > appropriate? > > 2. Do they print that the program is GPL- > > licensed? > > 3. Do they print how to view the license terms? > > > > They appear to comply (or can easily comply with) > > 2 and 3. Unless you have a lawyer, though, 1 is > > gray. > > > > > When you take > > > view propites of a dll / exe / sys / .. we are > > > showing our copyright. therefor are you not > > > allown to change this copyright note. > > > > (see above -- same error) > > > > > and they are breaking paragraph > > > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or > > > distribute the Program except as expressly > > > provided under this License. Any attempt > > > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or > > > distribute the Program is void, and will > > > automatically terminate your rights under this > > > License. However, parties who have received > > > copies, or rights, from you under this License > > > will not have their licenses terminated so long > > > as such parties remain in full compliance. > > > > > > > > > They are not allown to change any licen from us. > > > > Please clarify. According to them, they are using > > the GPL license -- same as us. I don't see how > > they are changing the licensing. > > > > > for we using sublicen wine dll are lgpl and our > > > own code are gpl thefor should wine dll see as a > > > sublicen. > > > > I don't really understand what you're trying to > > say here. However, note that the LGPL allows you > > to "upgrade" to the GPL license (it's effectively > > a dual license). The LGPL states: > > > > 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary > > GNU General Public License instead of this License > > to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you > > must alter all the notices that refer to this > > License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU > > General Public License, version 2, instead of to > > this License. (If a newer version than version 2 > > of the ordinary GNU General Public License has > > appeared, then you can specify that version > > instead if you wish.) Do not make any other > > change in these notices. > > > > Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- it's > > all one license (GPL). > > > > > I have not check see if they are still breaking > > > more paragraph in gpl. And I start thinking to > > > we or I should send a email say at they have > > > break gpl and they are not longer right to use > > > our code or my. > > > > As irate as you may be, nothing that you've > > brought up thus far looks to be an infraction of > > the GPL (although they could *potentially* be > > breaking some copyright law or other, e.g. by > > adding their copyright notices and removing > > existing ones, or by failing to cite sources of > > patches). > > > > > I need get this out from my head and hart. I am > > > alot pissoff on holtix guys. The taking our > > > patch and put into there source there. without > > > telling how have wrote the code. > > > > I agree that that's wrong and unfair. People > > deserve credit and recognition for the work that > > they do. > > > > > That mean they are breaking some copyright laws. > > > > If you can find the particular law that applies, > > go for it. I'm not an international lawyer myself, > > so I don't know what laws even apply to them -- > > let alone if they're breaking those laws. > > > > > You can not take other source code and put into > > > another there without writen permitontion > > > > You contributed your code under the terms of the > > GPL. That is your "written permission," sorry to > > say -- by your own choice of license, the source > > code is available to be copied, reworked, and re- > > released by anyone else. I'll also reiterate that > > they do seem to be in compliance (though only by > > words and not in spirit). > > > > > or tell where the code comes from. if you look > > > at there source there you will think they have > > > wrote the patch code. But it is some devloper at > > > us that have write the patch for reactos. > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > -- Travis > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

5 4

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:53:07AM -0700, magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote: > I know you can make lgpl to gpl that is not the > problem. reactos main licen is gpl. right. And gpl > say you are not allown to change a sublicen to > another licen. right. Not quite, no. The GPL says that if you use GPL code, everything that you release that uses that GPL code must also be GPL. Thus (BSD + LGPL + GPL) -> GPL when it's distributed. BSD must be sublicensed, and LGPL must have it's GPL license conversion excercised. You no longer have the full BSD rights in the distributed code anymore, if you download it all as a whole. > than mean all other modules that are using a diffent > licen like lgpl as wine dll does. it will become a > sublicen. I reiterate that it is not a sublicense in the case of the LGPL. > And 3d part like hotlix can not change any sublicen > that reactos is using. they must release with same > licen. ... they must release everything as GPL, if that's what you're trying to say ... > But if we in ros have change lgpl to gpl that is > allown. or if hotlix did take the source direcly > from wine. often are we using modify wine dll files > and some part of the code will never goes back to > wine, for it is reactos specfiy so it will working > in reactos or windows, that will not work in wine > under linux. And none of these will have licensing issues. > Some other dll are under bsd licen, I have not check > see if they have change that licen. but problade > they have. ... And they would actually HAVE to change the license of the BSD code to be GPL, unless they downloaded the BSD code separately, or downloaded the BSD portions in separate, discreet sections. Why? Because you distribute ReactOS, as a whole, under GPL. BSD/no advert gives you enough rights to sublicense as GPL. Thus, you can include BSD code into a GPL project, and the BSD code thus distributed is no longer BSD -- it's been sublicensed out as GPL. It would be totally correct of them to mark every file in their SVN as being distributed under the GPL (otherwise, ReactOS is doing something that is non-GPL compliant). They also have the option of discreetly downloading all of the sections that are non-GPL, and reconstructing those sections in order to retain the original licenses (though there's little point in that). But in either case, they aren't doing anything wrong with either the licensing or the sublicensing. Since they're distributing the whole project as GPL, the point is moot -- since you distribute all of the files as GPL, then they can distribute the files (modified or not) as GPL. If they can't, then neither can you -- if they're distributing everything as GPL, and their out of compliance, then you must've been out of compliance to begin with. -- Travis ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 06:53:59AM -0700, magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > <- url to gpl licen http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html ^ URL to LGPL license ^ > read paragrpah 2 > c) If the modified program normally reads commands > interactively when run, you must cause it, when > started running for such interactive use in the most > ordinary way, to print or display an announcement > including an appropriate copyright notice and a > notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying > that you provide a warranty) and that users may > redistribute the program under these conditions, and > telling the user how to view a copy of this License. > (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but > does not normally print such an announcement, your > work based on the Program is not required to print > an announcement.) Read LGPL section 3 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices. Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy. This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library into a program that is not a library. > the text above are from gpl and I have include where > to obtain the gpl licen. The text above is from the LGPL, and I have included where to obtain the LGPL license. > If I do not complete wrong we are relasng wine dll as > lgpl in the source there not gpl. DING! Therefore, the GPL does NOT apply, the *LGPL* terms I quoted above DO apply. > therefor it become a sublicen, we do not change the > licen from lgpl to gpl. if you reading wine source > code for wine dll files you will see it is under > lgpl not gpl. DING! Also correct. But as soon as I get the LGPL files, I can invoke clause 3, and BAM! They are now GPL'd. No sublicensing is involved. The LGPL has the same practical effect as dual-licensing the code as LGPL/GPL. Note that I pointed this out way back in the conversation: > > > > I don't really understand what you're trying > > > > to say here. However, note that the LGPL > > > > allows you to "upgrade" to the GPL license > > > > (it's effectively a dual license). The LGPL > > > > states: > > > > > > > > 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the > > > > ordinary GNU General Public License instead of > > > > this License to a given copy of the Library. > > > > To do this, you must alter all the notices > > > > that refer to this License, so that they refer > > > > to the ordinary GNU General Public License, > > > > version 2, instead of to this License. (If a > > > > newer version than version 2 of the ordinary > > > > GNU General Public License has appeared, then > > > > you can specify that version instead if you > > > > wish.) Do not make any other change in these > > > > notices. > > > > > > > > Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- > > > > it's all one license (GPL). <282 lines snipped> So, again -- DUAL licensing, NOT sublicensing. -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 09:37:04AM -0400, Brandon Turner wrote: > Why do you consider an altered copyright notice > appropriate? > Good question. It doesn't matter whether I think it's appropriate or not. It's not for me to decide, and to the best of my knowledge, I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other about thinking that it is or isn't appropriate. However, it is up to us to prove that it's explicitly *not* appropriate (i.e., that they have broken the license). Because "appropriate" isn't defined in the license itself, we must rely on a combination of legal precedence and juristiction-specific law. I am not a lawyer, so I can't tell you what "appropriate" means. Thus, until we have proof to the contrary, it must be assumed to be appropriate. -- Travis <snipped for sanity's sake> __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev