From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I8C6t-0002XW-EV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:34:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6A9WgUt008964; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:32:42 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6A9UdvC006686 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:30:40 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311C8650EA for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:30:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.018 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.018 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.581, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dkCMsaurEf+v for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39702650F0 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I8C3C-0003qw-Nw for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:30 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-14-118.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.14.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:30 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-14-118.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:30 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3. Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1183832495.20203.11.camel@SOLACE> <468FDCFE.1060404@gentoo.org> <4690C4B8.4000407@gentoo.org> <200707081350.27220.philantrop@gentoo.org> <1183899969.6634.1.camel@localhost> <20070708164657.4edd8378@localhost> <1183916932.6634.6.camel@localhost> <469129CF.9040301@thefreemanclan.net> <20070709213752.0dfa2b72@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-14-118.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.131 (Ghosts: First Variation) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 08220412-0f4a-443e-8586-9dadd18731a9 X-Archives-Hash: 844826f87563e08658cc171adc2fa437 Dominique Michel posted 20070709213752.0dfa2b72@localhost, excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:37:52 +0200: > So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is > under v2 or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am > wrong on that point. Agreed. Tivoization shouldn't be an issue in this case for several reasons. The Gentoo alternative just doesn't make sense for someone trying to tivoize, as there are better alternatives (virtually anything package manager designed primarily to work with binaries, as opposed to source). > I don't know if an individual patches in some ebuild-xyz/files folder > can be under v3 or v2 and later in order to be able to legally patch a > gpl-v3 xyz software. > > The situation is: the ebuild-xyz have a patch under gpl-v2 in its files > folder because it is in the tree and the whole tree is v2 only. And the > software xyz is under gpl-v3. The problem is at I think at it will not > be allowed by the software xyz because gpl-v3 is not compatible with a > patch under the gpl-v2 only licence. The patch's licence must be gpl-v2 > or later, gpl-v3, or gpl-v3 or later. That's not an issue, because the copyright and license on the tree is on the collective whole, not on the components, which if copyrightable will have their own licenses. That's a very common and legally well supported principle, that the collection gets its own copyright apart from the components. Related but a slightly different angle is the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPLv2 (and I believe v3 as well, I don't know it as well yet). That a collection of otherwise uncopyrightable "trivials" or information in the public domain can yet be copyrighted is also legally well supported. Databases and phonebooks are precedents there. Lest anyone get a very wrong idea, IANAL, tho the area is of some interest to me, so I follow it to some degree. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list