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

[Michael Casadevall]

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.

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
Michael

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
> > its
> >  * 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
> removal.
>
> Thomas

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