Re: [gNewSense-users] KFV Flow

[Sam Geeraerts]

Luis Alberto wrote:
> > Very nice!
> >
> > Some comments:
> > - I thought we established that GNU GPL without a version equals GNU GPLv2
> > - I'm not sure what a 2-level search is and why the number of levels
> > should be 2
> > - Why report cases of patents and reverse engineering? I thought gNewSense
> > didn't care about patents and I believe there's nothing wrong with reverse
> > engineering.
>
> About the comments;
> - I didn't know that it was established that GNU GPL without a version
> equals to GNU GPLv2 but i think is better if we confirm that is GNU GPLv2
> from the copyright holder. If you check closer when there is no one to ask
> to confirm, it goes to the global kernel license, GNU GPLv2.
> I think is the correct way to proceed, maybe not the faster.
See this thread: 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-04/msg00057.html

Contacting the copyright holder would be the friendly thing to do. But 
we have to assume that he understands the full implications of the 
license that he applies to the code, even if it is applied rather 
informally. What would you do if he says "oh wait, I actually meant the 
CDDL"? Technically the GPL would still apply because it cannot be 
revoked, but in order to not piss off the copyright holder you would 
remove it.

I think in the (unlikely) event that a developer would change his mind 
it's his own responsibility to (try to) correct the situation and he 
doesn't need gNewSense holding his hand for that.

The only thing that I think this would accomplish is that the developer 
might be more explicit about licensing for his future software 
development (which is good, but not necessary).

> - Sorry i should explain this, the 2-level search is when we don't have the
> information at hand, and we have to search for it.
>
> We start in point "A" that tell us to follow "B" and that to "C".
>  A --> B ---> C
>  from A --> C, is what i call a 2-level search.
> License or copyright holder mail search. Maybe is a long search, but it
> stablishes that we did the necesary effort get the clearest licence of the
> package.
Ah, I get it. It's like: follow references to license of copyright 
holder until you find one.

> - I did read something about gnewsense refusing software patents, maybe i
> should check closer,  reverse engineering is fine, even though some
> manufactures takes that as illegal. So i thought is better to confirm with
> the list, and avoid personal assumptions.
For patents: see thread above. It's still a bit misty, but it looks like 
ignoring them is the thing to do.

Same goes for reverse engineering, I guess. gNewSense is innocent until 
proven guilty.