Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
Hi Gianfranco, Hi Tobias,
Hi all Readers of this Debian Mentor Request,
Am 2016-08-25 um 13:12 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
Now this is an additional restriction: you need to provide everything
that is necessary to run your software under an OSS based system (with
exceptions given for the kernel modules).
I think this is a GPL-3 restriction, if you mean "Tivoization"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
Sounds good to me. Then I am going to analyse GPL-3 and see if I can
adopt it for my programs.
(and this is a good reason to stay away from GPL-3)
... just the other way round
Another issue is that I do not want to 'register' i.e. sell my
personal data to a company I do not trust just in order to fetch
their GPL-ed sources.
also not part of GPL.
what?
sorry I don't follow this sentence ;)
some minor issues that would remain (like obtaining the sources without
undue obstacles) ..., however likely nothing that could stop me from
adopting GPL-3 for my programs.
>>> The problem about additional GPL-2 clauses seems to be that they
>>> can be dropped at any time. An unpleasant contributor can do so any
>>> time and I would not be able to incorporate his changes if I wanna
>>> keep the additional freedoms I wanna guarantee for the upstream
>>> version.
>> They can be dropped (and, in fact, ignored completely) only if they
>> introduce additional restrictions conficting with the GPL itself. If
>> you're granting additional rights, you're free to grant them only
>> under a certain condition ("you're free to relicence this software
>> under a different license but you must keep this statement in tact").
> I guess so
Anyone else who could assert me that an additional GPL-3 clause would
do what I want: i.e. give an additional right to relicense to a group
called original authors only; let this be called GPL-3 + relicensing by
authors. The GPL-3 amendment would more or less be the same as #7 of
C-FSL and a statement to tag the GPL-3 abbreviation with the relicensing
by authors flag.
Is it really true that this can not be interpreted as restriction
just because any contributor would have to consent in giving the
original authors this additional right. It means that someone who does
not consent is not allowed to apply changes because then the whole
license would need to turn invalid.
Finally I would like to ask anyone who knows about another issue with
C-FSL to share it with me as the programs in question will likely be
available under C-FSL + GPL-3 + relicensing by authors for some ongoing
time.
up to now I have noted the following issues for C-FSL:
* explicitly allow unchanged redistribution
* version number to use as default: v1.1
* mention online URL in the license
see: https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.0.txt
Regards,
Elmar
Reply to: