[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

From: Michael Casadevall
Subject: Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:49:50 -0400

I did cite one such case already, from cons.c (it appears in quite a few other files as well), and Thomas cited one as well.

(3) all advertising
* materials mentioning features or use of this software display the following
* acknowledgement: ``This product includes software developed by the
* Computer Systems Laboratory at the University of Utah.''

I mentioned the hosting on Savannah simply to address that it was a concern; I was and am fully aware we could move if needed.

What we need to do (WRT to "or later" clause):
1. Remove the "or later clause" and get copyright holders permission
to do so (and then go find new hosting since we'll have to leave
Savannah unless they are willing to make an exception for us)

As I say, this is not necessary. There is an advantage to *adding* "or any later version", if we can get it on every contribution, because then
we could specify GPLv3.  But there is no advantage to *removing* it.

I'll address this in a moment. I also decided to talk with Beuc, Savannah's lead administrator for a clarification on the current rules. Thomas is right in stating that we don't have a rule directly preventing GPLv2-only packages (that was a mistake I made). I've attached the transcript from #savannah. I also spoke about the current "or later version" clause and what it means for Mach.

Attachment: Transcript.txt
Description: Text document

I have to go, but I wanted to post this now, and I'll address more points once I get a moment

On Jun 16, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:52 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:

 * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
 * documentation is hereby granted, provided that both the copyright
 * notice and this permission notice appear in all copies of the
 * software, derivative works or modified versions, and any portions
 * thereof, and that both notices appear in supporting documentation.

Sorry, I took your word for it when I sholudn't have.

Nothing here, which you attribute to UU, contains the noxious
advertising clause.

I do recall that such files did once exist, but this notice is not it.
Notice, you see, that it does not refer to advertising.

If there are such notices, can you please post one?  I can ask Utah
about it, and my guess is that this is all old enough that they won't
care at all, and will happily follow BSD's example and allow its


Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]