Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of ROS through XDCCBot.

[Sylvain Petreolle]

Feel free to reread LGPL 2.1 here :
http://svn.reactos.com/viewcvs/trunk/reactos/LGPL.txt

--- Magnus Olsen [e-mail] wrote:
> ReactOS are not a LPGL but GPL
> it is big diffrent in the licen type
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sylvain Petreolle" [e-mail]
> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of ROS through
> XDCCBot.
> > If all legal conditions are fulfilled :
> > give link to the source
> > (alex's idea) provide md5sum of the file(s)
> >
> > As some people already said,  3d point cant exist.
> > (ros is a LGPL system, some magazines already distribute it, etc.)
> > > [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the #ros-xdcc
> > > channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage this distribution)
> > >
> > > [X] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must clearly
> > > distance itself from officially supported releases (tolerate but do not
> > > support this distribution)
> > >
> > > [ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS distribution points
> > > should be used.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Usurp (aka Sylvain Petreolle)
> >
> > humans are like computers,
> > yesterday the BIOS was all
> > today its just a word
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Kind regards,

Usurp (aka Sylvain Petreolle)

humans are like computers,
yesterday the BIOS was all
- today its just a word

[Ge van Geldorp]

Most of ReactOS is licensed under the GPL. The parts we share with Wine are
LGPL.

Gé van Geldorp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sylvain Petreolle
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 21:44
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of 
> ROS throughXDCCBot.
>
> Feel free to reread LGPL 2.1 here : 
> http://svn.reactos.com/viewcvs/trunk/reactos/LGPL.txt
>
> --- Magnus Olsen [e-mail] wrote:
> > ReactOS are not a LPGL but GPL
> > it is big diffrent in the licen type
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sylvain Petreolle" [e-mail]
> > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 8:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution
>
> of ROS through
> > XDCCBot.
> > > If all legal conditions are fulfilled :
> > > give link to the source
> > > (alex's idea) provide md5sum of the file(s)
> > >
> > > As some people already said,  3d point cant exist.
> > > (ros is a LGPL system, some magazines already distribute it, etc.)
> > > > [ ] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS through the 
> > > > #ros-xdcc channel and ROS-XDCC-001 bot. (support and encourage 
> > > > this distribution)
> > > >
> > > > [X] Yes, allow 3rd-party distribution of the OS, but it must 
> > > > clearly distance itself from officially supported releases 
> > > > (tolerate but do not support this distribution)
> > > >
> > > > [ ] No, only sourceforge and other official ReactOS
>
> distribution
> > > > points should be used.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Usurp (aka Sylvain Petreolle)
> > >
> > > humans are like computers,
> > > yesterday the BIOS was all
> > > today its just a word
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
>
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Usurp (aka Sylvain Petreolle)
>
> humans are like computers,
> yesterday the BIOS was all
> today its just a word
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Royce Mitchell III]

Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> Most of ReactOS is licensed under the GPL. The parts we share with Wine are
> LGPL.

Usurp feels there is confusion due to the fact there is an LGPL.txt and 
not a GPL.txt

Whereas the GPL license is quoted on COPYING, this is perhaps not the 
most clear representation.

1) Should we duplicate COPYING as "GPL.txt"?
    (we could change COPYING to read only "see the file GPL.txt for this 
project's license, or something to that effect)

2) Should we:
    a) delete LGPL.txt
    b) move LGPL.txt to the subdirectories where it applies
    c) add a preamble to LGPL.txt explaining that it does not cover the 
entire project.
    d) other?