From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2008-09-10 00:17:27
|
Hey All, I've had yet another patch sent my way for w32api that is based on wine. I know we've had this discussion before, but is the Public Domain license that the w32api is released under incompatible with the LGPL? If so perhaps we should make reference to it somewhere on the wiki? Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-09-10 12:02:43
|
Quoting Chris Sutcliffe <ir0...@gm...>: > Hey All, > > I've had yet another patch sent my way for w32api that is based on > wine. I know we've had this discussion before, but is the Public > Domain license that the w32api is released under incompatible with the > LGPL? If so perhaps we should make reference to it somewhere on the > wiki? > Patches from wine are not acceptable. We cannot accept patches with GPL licenses. Earnie |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2008-09-10 13:17:12
|
> Patches from wine are not acceptable. We cannot accept patches with > GPL licenses. Wine is licensed under the LGPL (http://www.winehq.org/site/license), but what's not clear to me is how the LGPL relates to Public Domain software. Unfortunately the GNU site doesn't explicitly details the compatibilities between licenses other than saying PD software is compatible with the GPL (and LGPL I would assume). It doesn't state if the LGPL license is compatible with the PD license. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: techtonik <tec...@gm...> - 2008-09-10 07:30:51
|
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Chris Sutcliffe <ir0...@gm...> wrote: > I've had yet another patch sent my way for w32api that is based on > wine. I know we've had this discussion before, but is the Public > Domain license that the w32api is released under incompatible with the > LGPL? If so perhaps we should make reference to it somewhere on the > wiki? There is no problem to include public domain code into LGPLed Wine. The problem to include LGPLed code in PD repository, because when you mix LGPL code with PD - your code should become LGPL also. You need permission from the author to make his work available in PD, but if the author sends patch to MinGW it is assumes that fixed are based on MinGW sources and if author haven't explicitly said that the fix should be LGPL it remains in PD. To avoid any disputes make a page with patch submission rules stating that only PD patches for certain parts of MinGW sources could be accepted. -- --anatoly t. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-09-10 17:19:06
|
Quoting Chris Sutcliffe <ir0...@gm...>: >> Patches from wine are not acceptable. We cannot accept patches with >> GPL licenses. > > Wine is licensed under the LGPL (http://www.winehq.org/site/license), > but what's not clear to me is how the LGPL relates to Public Domain > software. Unfortunately the GNU site doesn't explicitly details the > compatibilities between licenses other than saying PD software is > compatible with the GPL (and LGPL I would assume). It doesn't state > if the LGPL license is compatible with the PD license. > Public Domain can be relicensed at will; all copyright has been released and removed. Therefore PD->GPL isn't a problem and the code is now GPL in the context of the source the PD was included within. But GPL->PD then PD becomes GPL because of the GPL license ``copyleft'' statements. Earnie |
From: techtonik <tec...@gm...> - 2008-09-10 19:12:10
|
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: > > Public Domain can be relicensed at will; all copyright has been > released and removed. But the responsibility is not. If you releasing a virus into PD - you will be sued anyways. > Therefore PD->GPL isn't a problem and the code > is now GPL in the context of the source the PD was included within. > But GPL->PD then PD becomes GPL because of the GPL license ``copyleft'' > statements. You've forgot to mention that original author can always relicense his own code under any other license. So if the derived work is made to branchpoint of PD->GPL code - it can be applied to PD code as well on author's discretion. -- --anatoly t. |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2008-09-10 18:13:25
|
> Public Domain can be relicensed at will; all copyright has been > released and removed. Therefore PD->GPL isn't a problem and the code > is now GPL in the context of the source the PD was included within. > But GPL->PD then PD becomes GPL because of the GPL license ``copyleft'' > statements. Well put. Perhaps we as I mentioned earlier, we should put something up on the wiki explaining the license so that this doesn't come up as often as it does. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-09-10 22:08:48
|
On Wednesday 10 September 2008 19:13:17 Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > > Public Domain can be relicensed at will; all copyright has been > > released and removed. Therefore PD->GPL isn't a problem and the > > code is now GPL in the context of the source the PD was included > > within. But GPL->PD then PD becomes GPL because of the GPL > > license ``copyleft'' statements. And likewise, for LGPL->PD. > Well put. I was going to answer your original question: Pedantically, answering the question you actually asked, yes, our PD licence is compatible with LGPL or GPL. Pragmatically, answering the question you meant to ask, no, neither the GPL nor the LGPL is compatible with our PD licensing. The relationship is not commutative; Earnie has already explained the implications. > Perhaps we as I mentioned earlier, we should put > something up on the wiki explaining the license so that this > doesn't come up as often as it does. I've converted my original SubmitPatches text from OldWiki to NewWiki format, and I've added a clause to explicitly state that we do not accept patches based on Wine or ReactOS sources: http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches Regards, Keith. |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2008-09-10 23:27:32
|
> I've converted my original SubmitPatches text from OldWiki to NewWiki > format, and I've added a clause to explicitly state that we do not > accept patches based on Wine or ReactOS sources: > http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches Excellent, I'll just share this link the next time I get patches from questionable sources. Cheers! Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: techtonik <tec...@gm...> - 2008-09-11 05:56:08
|
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Keith Marshall <kei...@us...> wrote: > > I've converted my original SubmitPatches text from OldWiki to NewWiki > format, and I've added a clause to explicitly state that we do not > accept patches based on Wine or ReactOS sources: > http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches Please, review the links. -- --anatoly t. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-09-11 06:18:51
|
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:56:01 techtonik wrote: > > I've converted my original SubmitPatches text from OldWiki to > > NewWiki format, and I've added a clause to explicitly state that > > we do not accept patches based on Wine or ReactOS sources: > > http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches > > Please, review the links. Oh, I *know* the job isn't finished! You are way too impatient, which is one of the reasons you've made yourself so gravely unpopular among the MinGW Developer Community. Why don't you just contribute something *constructive* for a change? Keith. |