| Message ID | 1243784652-31802-1-git-send-email-naesten@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 19:44, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote:
> Changes-licensed-under: ISC license
I don't think it works that way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 19:44, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: >> Changes-licensed-under: ISC license > > I don't think it works that way. Yeah, yeah, well it's a simple permissive license, so even if the patch introduced anything copyrightable -- which it presumably doesn't -- you could use it anyway. I just don't feel comfortable contributing under the OSL 1.1, for some reason -- possibly because it's considered non-DFSG, possibly because it's even more restrictive than the GPL ... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: > I just don't feel comfortable contributing under the OSL 1.1, for some > reason -- possibly because it's considered non-DFSG, possibly because > it's even more restrictive than the GPL ... If you look at the recent mailing list archives, you will find that a particular snapshot of the git tree was relicensed by the original copyright holder (Transmeta?) under the MIT license. It seems the current developers intend to check with the other copyright holders (for code commited after the particular relicensed snapshot) for a license change. So I would you suggest at least using the MIT license to not "pollute" the code with yet another license... The developers might need to confirm this, I'm just on "monitoring mode" here currently :) Regards,
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 20:06, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 19:44, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Changes-licensed-under: ISC license >> >> I don't think it works that way. > > Yeah, yeah, well it's a simple permissive license, so even if the > patch introduced anything copyrightable -- which it presumably doesn't > -- you could use it anyway. > > I just don't feel comfortable contributing under the OSL 1.1, for some > reason -- possibly because it's considered non-DFSG, possibly because > it's even more restrictive than the GPL ... > I'm not your lawyer, and not the sparse maintainer, but I strongly suspect that that means that you can't contribute to sparse. And I'm not sure if you could distribute the patches you sent at all, since they are derivative work, and should be covered with the same license as sparse itself. c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anderson Lizardo <anderson.lizardo@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: >> I just don't feel comfortable contributing under the OSL 1.1, for some >> reason -- possibly because it's considered non-DFSG, possibly because >> it's even more restrictive than the GPL ... > > If you look at the recent mailing list archives, you will find that a > particular snapshot of the git tree was relicensed by the original > copyright holder (Transmeta?) under the MIT license. It seems the > current developers intend to check with the other copyright holders > (for code commited after the particular relicensed snapshot) for a > license change. > > So I would you suggest at least using the MIT license to not "pollute" > the code with yet another license... Oh, sure, that's fine with me! Hadn't heard about that. The MIT/X11 license is almost the same as the ISC license. Go ahead and s/ISC license/MIT license/ in these patches, though I don't think either of the patches that actually work (1/3 and 3/3) give me copyright on any code anyway. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 21:36, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anderson Lizardo > <anderson.lizardo@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I just don't feel comfortable contributing under the OSL 1.1, for some >>> reason -- possibly because it's considered non-DFSG, possibly because >>> it's even more restrictive than the GPL ... >> >> If you look at the recent mailing list archives, you will find that a >> particular snapshot of the git tree was relicensed by the original >> copyright holder (Transmeta?) under the MIT license. It seems the >> current developers intend to check with the other copyright holders >> (for code commited after the particular relicensed snapshot) for a >> license change. >> >> So I would you suggest at least using the MIT license to not "pollute" >> the code with yet another license... > > Oh, sure, that's fine with me! Hadn't heard about that. The MIT/X11 > license is almost the same as the ISC license. Go ahead and s/ISC > license/MIT license/ in these patches, though I don't think either of > the patches that actually work (1/3 and 3/3) give me copyright on any > code anyway. > Won't work that easily. Only an early sparse version, owned exclusively by transmeta may be alternatively distribute under the MIT license. To convert the current sparse version to MIT, we need to get all the contributors to agree to this. Not impossible, but someone needs to send lots of emails. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com> wrote: > Won't work that easily. Only an early sparse version, owned exclusively > by transmeta may be alternatively distribute under the MIT license. To > convert the current sparse version to MIT, we need to get all the > contributors to agree to this. Not impossible, but someone needs to > send lots of emails. ;) Yes, well, count me in -- now all I have to do is actually contribute something copyrightable ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/gdbhelpers b/gdbhelpers index 7223ffd..34407d6 100644 --- a/gdbhelpers +++ b/gdbhelpers @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +# For emacs: -*- gdb-script -*- # Don't forget to rebuild sparse with uncommented debug options # in the Makefile. Also, gcc 3 is known to screw up with the
Changes-licensed-under: ISC license Signed-off-by: Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> --- gdbhelpers | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)