Nothing retroactive about it

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #274,232 by crazy 11/28/06 2:40:27 PM Reply	Nothing retroactive about it Assume GPL V 2.1 game out and it includes this clause. Not any of the other DRM related stuff that seems DOA in GPL V 3, just this new change. I'd say a large portion of the people who released GPL V2 code would happily relicense to the 2.1. Any of the old code is STILL V2, but any new patches / releases will be 2.1. So the old code will die, while new releases will live. It is essentially self-forking, but only code owners can use a new license.
Post #274,234 by andread 11/28/06 3:13:57 PM Reply	Re: Nothing retroactive about it so if I'm a free-software developer, I can't choose the license for my work? Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #274,235 by crazy 11/28/06 3:16:01 PM Reply	Define your goal and possible usage
Post #274,238 by CRConrad 11/28/06 3:38:39 PM Reply	Sure you can. For your work, you can... ...but for the FSF's work, Novell doesn't get to choose the license. That's only fair, isn't it? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]

Change GPL retroactively? - (andread) - (19) - Nov. 28, 2006, 02:11:47 PM EST

Nothing retroactive about it - (crazy) - (3) - Nov. 28, 2006, 02:40:27 PM EST

Re: Nothing retroactive about it - (andread) - (2) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:13:57 PM EST

Define your goal and possible usage -NT - (crazy) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:16:01 PM EST

Sure you can. For *your* work, *you* can... - (CRConrad) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:38:39 PM EST

Nope. - (folkert) - (13) - Nov. 28, 2006, 04:06:01 PM EST

Nope to you - (crazy) - (12) - Nov. 28, 2006, 04:17:16 PM EST

I disagree. - (folkert) - (11) - Nov. 28, 2006, 05:46:17 PM EST

Yes and no - (crazy) - (10) - Nov. 28, 2006, 07:37:41 PM EST

You think Linus will accept patches under anything but 2.0? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2006, 03:09:55 AM EST

Dunno - (crazy) - Nov. 29, 2006, 06:57:32 AM EST

There is no way that the Linux KERNEL will ever be... - (folkert) - (7) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:13:17 AM EST

But the issue is not just the kernel - (crazy) - Nov. 29, 2006, 07:00:18 AM EST

Why would anyone fork GCC, etc? Who? - (CRConrad) - (5) - Nov. 29, 2006, 07:29:49 AM EST

egcs -NT - (altmann) - (4) - Nov. 29, 2006, 01:00:20 PM EST

That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3) - Nov. 29, 2006, 03:25:39 PM EST

Didn't that get un-forked, too? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:09:00 PM EST

Yup - but not over license issues - (crazy) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:43:22 PM EST

Why - is Amazon in the business of *distributing gcc*? - (CRConrad) - Nov. 30, 2006, 06:29:13 AM EST

Thanks Gentlemen - (andread) - Nov. 29, 2006, 09:25:18 AM EST

So, what are we going to do tonight, Brain?
79 ms