anon wrote:
> Name calling is the problem here!

If you're so confident in your views, why don't you give your name so
we can call you that?

>
> I made a statement.

With no supporting evidence whatsoever.

>
> Instead of producing court cases or documents that could if they
> exist, prove me wrong. You just cover your head in dirt and say that
> its is FALSE, wth no proof. No wonder why device applications like
> (cellphone) for Linux do not exist. Your to busy calling people false,
> and cuttring down companies instead of working on a solution. Now
> that's just childish!

On 2007-07-30, anon <anon@anon.org> rambled on thusly:

> Name calling is the problem here!

> I made a statement.


Professor Quirrell: "TROLL! IN THE DUNGEON!!! I thought you should know..."

*PLONK*


--
Michael Fierro (aka Biffster) biffster@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com
http://apt-get.us Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1
-==-
Tcl long ago fell into the Forth trap, and is now trying desperately to
extricate itself (with some help from Sun's marketing department).
-- Larry Wall in <199705101952.MAA00756@wall.org>

anon wrote:

> Name calling is the problem here!

No it isn't.

> I made a statement.

You did. A worthless, nonsensical statement, without any supporting
evidence. What a troll!

> Instead of producing court cases or documents that could if they
> exist, prove me wrong.

Why bother? You obviously have no understanding of Law, are functionally
illiterate, irredeemably stupid, and haven't the backbone to even reveal
your /name!/

> You just cover your head in dirt and say that
> its is FALSE, wth no proof.

Show us /your/ "proof"!

> No wonder why device applications like
> (cellphone) for Linux do not exist.

Demonstrating your stupidity again? If you understand how links work, visit
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4604576509.html and see that they've been
around for years.

> Your to busy calling people false,
> and cuttring down companies instead of working on a solution.

I've got all the solutions I want - /none/ of them involving proprietary
software. I don't need Windows or OSX or Solaris. I can fulfil my very
exacting computing needs perfectly well using just Linux.

> Now that's just childish!

No. You're the childish one, spouting silly nonsense about subjects you
know /nothing/ about.

> IF SO, PROVE IT! GIVE US THE DETAILS AND COURT INFORMATION!!!

Why? You wouldn't understand it if I did.

> But you wont because your the one that is False!

What does this illiterate rant mean?

> So, you are the ones that
> have no idea of ther TRUTH!

I don't think you'd recognise truth if it slapped you in the face.

Run along now and play with your toys.

C.

In <x5tri.39041$%v3.37727@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk >, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>anon wrote:
>
>> Name calling is the problem here!
>
>No it isn't.
>

SPAMMER Who only spend time calling people names is the problem!
And you are a TRUE SPAMMER! And ONLY A SPAMMER!


>> I made a statement.
>
>You did. A worthless, nonsensical statement, without any supporting
>evidence. What a troll!
>

There you go again proving that you are a SPAMMER!

>> Instead of producing court cases or documents that could if they
>> exist, prove me wrong.
>
>Why bother? You obviously have no understanding of Law, are functionally
>illiterate, irredeemably stupid, and haven't the backbone to even reveal
>your /name!/
>
>> You just cover your head in dirt and say that
>> its is FALSE, wth no proof.
>
>Show us /your/ "proof"!

My proof is try how you talk! and that you will not prove that you
were in court!

>
>> No wonder why device applications like
>> (cellphone) for Linux do not exist.
>
>Demonstrating your stupidity again? If you understand how links work, visit
>http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4604576509.html and see that they've been
>around for years.

I am talking about from the phone company themseves. Like Apple
making a IPHONE linux app. Or LG. If we have to go outside the
hardware companies to LINUX only web site then the hacked program
will not have all functions of that phone or a warranty if the program
damages that cell.

>
>> Your to busy calling people false,
>> and cuttring down companies instead of working on a solution.
>
>I've got all the solutions I want - /none/ of them involving proprietary
>software. I don't need Windows or OSX or Solaris. I can fulfil my very
>exacting computing needs perfectly well using just Linux.
>
>> Now that's just childish!
>
>No. You're the childish one, spouting silly nonsense about subjects you
>know /nothing/ about.

Proving your SPAMMERS ONCE AGAIN!

>
>> IF SO, PROVE IT! GIVE US THE DETAILS AND COURT INFORMATION!!!
>
>Why? You wouldn't understand it if I did.

That means your the one that we can NOT TRUST to tell the TRUTHt!
That's because all software patent cases are of intest to all in the
software business. So, there are reports of all software cases and their
discussion. And if your TRUE you would KNOW THAT!



>
>> But you wont because your the one that is False!
>
>What does this illiterate rant mean?
>
>> So, you are the ones that
>> have no idea of ther TRUTH!
>
>I don't think you'd recognise truth if it slapped you in the face.
>
>Run along now and play with your toys.
>
>C.
>
>

anon wrote:

> SPAMMER Who only spend time calling people names is the problem!
> And you are a TRUE SPAMMER! And ONLY A SPAMMER!

You are obviously too stupid to understand what a /spammer/ actually is.
You are a waste of time, space and air. FOAD. *PLONK!*

anon@anon.org (anon) wrote in
news:7cFqi.376054$p47.299315@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL
> version 3. So what now?
>
> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be
> one active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June
> 29, 2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
> license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early
> 1090's.
>
> It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
> Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2.
> What matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the
> countries that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that
> all programs that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June,
> 2007 will now be under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the
> license file. Actually, the people who release the software can be
> sued if they do not update the file.
>
>
> For the non law educated people.
>
> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
> The old one is no longer valid. Or
>
> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
> not you.
>
> Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
> accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!
>

I am a law student in my second year, not quite a lawyer yet, but have
very good grasp of contract law. As far as I understand there is nothing
preventing someone from releasing a program under GPL1 or 2 or 3. GPL is
simply a model contract form that can be used by anyone.

However, there is a slight problem. For instance, lets say I take two
GPL programs, and use the code from both to create my own program that
combines the features of both prior programs. So, I have Program A
published under GPL2 and Program B published under GPL3 and I make
Program C. Well, the problem is obvious, which license do I release
Program C under. That's were the limitation comes in. Converting from
one license to another is not simpley a matter of snapping your fingers
and making it happen, it takes effort on the part of the main developer
to acquire permissions from all the other developers to convert to a
different license. For instance, in my hypothetical example above I
would have to contact developer of Program A and gat a waiver to release
my code under GPL3 and vice versa.

I have not studied GPL3 extensively, but it does sound like a good topic
for a paper.

OP does inadvertently ask interesting questions, though he really knows
nothing about the LAW, at least the way it is in US.

- Bogdan

x0054 wrote:

> OP does inadvertently ask interesting questions, though he really knows
> nothing about the LAW, at least the way it is in US.

.... or anywhere else in the world!

C.

You have shown yourself to be childish by you name calling.
You do not own this newsgroup are even run it!
The newsgroup are for everone to use and voice themselves
without the SPAMMER Who only spend time calling people
names is the problem!
And you are a TRUE SPAMMER! And ONLY A SPAMMER!

If you were true you would try prove my statements wrong,
but just like a spoiled kid. That can not face fact. You just
go on name calling!

It that you can not understand GPL maybe because you are a
kid that GPL version 3 will replace all version 2. And anyone
that trys to still use GPL version 2 will find out their license
is illegal.


In <sABri.35135$2U6.17076@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk >, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>anon wrote:
>
>> SPAMMER Who only spend time calling people names is the problem!
>> And you are a TRUE SPAMMER! And ONLY A SPAMMER!
>
>You are obviously too stupid to understand what a /spammer/ actually is.
>You are a waste of time, space and air. FOAD. *PLONK!*
>

x0054 <x0054@index.com> writes:

>anon@anon.org (anon) wrote in
>news:7cFqi.376054$p47.299315@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL
>> version 3. So what now?
>>
>> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be
>> one active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June
>> 29, 2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
>> license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early
>> 1090's.
>>
>> It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
>> Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2.
>> What matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the
>> countries that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that
>> all programs that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June,
>> 2007 will now be under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the
>> license file. Actually, the people who release the software can be
>> sued if they do not update the file.
>>
>>
>> For the non law educated people.
>>
>> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
>> The old one is no longer valid. Or
>>
>> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
>> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
>> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
>> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
>> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
>> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
>> not you.
>>
>> Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
>> accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!
>>

>I am a law student in my second year, not quite a lawyer yet, but have
>very good grasp of contract law. As far as I understand there is nothing
>preventing someone from releasing a program under GPL1 or 2 or 3. GPL is
>simply a model contract form that can be used by anyone.

>However, there is a slight problem. For instance, lets say I take two
>GPL programs, and use the code from both to create my own program that
>combines the features of both prior programs. So, I have Program A
>published under GPL2 and Program B published under GPL3 and I make
>Program C. Well, the problem is obvious, which license do I release
>Program C under. That's were the limitation comes in. Converting from
>one license to another is not simpley a matter of snapping your fingers
>and making it happen, it takes effort on the part of the main developer
>to acquire permissions from all the other developers to convert to a
>different license. For instance, in my hypothetical example above I
>would have to contact developer of Program A and gat a waiver to release
>my code under GPL3 and vice versa.

Very often the license is "GPL2 or later version" so then there would be no
problem. Also the most restrictive license would be the one that applied.


>I have not studied GPL3 extensively, but it does sound like a good topic
>for a paper.

>OP does inadvertently ask interesting questions, though he really knows
>nothing about the LAW, at least the way it is in US.

> - Bogdan

The problem is not what the GPL version 2 says or what version 3
says. Even thogh it needs to be tested in court.

Assuming the paragraghs in the GPL version 3 are legal then if you
release a program after June 29, 2007, then all parts of a program
using the GPL must meet the guidelines under the GPL version 3.

US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel document.
That is, if one adopts the GPL you can only adopt the newest or lasted
version. The GPL version 2 is only valid for pre-existing code that
adopted the GPL before June 29, 2007.

In your example, the parts of program A must be allered to meet the
rules of GPL 3 in order to use it in program C. Of course, assuming
that Program C is release under the GPL. You could choose another
license.

Now, if Program was created and release under the GPL before GPL
version 3 was release. Then it will be under version 2. And one can
use it under the GPL 2. But if the program is altered in any way then it
can no longer be release under the GPL version 2. It can be release under
other licenses, but if it is released under GPL the altered form must be
under GPL version 3.

That means that Linux Kernel before June 29, 2007 is under GPL
version 2. But all releases after June 29, 2007 must be modified
to adopt GPL version 3. Or it must adopted a different license.


In <Xns997EAAE57D294x0054indexcom@yourdomain.com>, x0054 <x0054@index.com> writes:
>anon@anon.org (anon) wrote in
>news:7cFqi.376054$p47.299315@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL
>> version 3. So what now?
>>
>> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be
>> one active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June
>> 29, 2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
>> license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early
>> 1090's.
>>
>> It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
>> Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2.
>> What matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the
>> countries that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that
>> all programs that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June,
>> 2007 will now be under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the
>> license file. Actually, the people who release the software can be
>> sued if they do not update the file.
>>
>>
>> For the non law educated people.
>>
>> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
>> The old one is no longer valid. Or
>>
>> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
>> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
>> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
>> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
>> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
>> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
>> not you.
>>
>> Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
>> accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!
>>
>
>I am a law student in my second year, not quite a lawyer yet, but have
>very good grasp of contract law. As far as I understand there is nothing
>preventing someone from releasing a program under GPL1 or 2 or 3. GPL is
>simply a model contract form that can be used by anyone.
>
>However, there is a slight problem. For instance, lets say I take two
>GPL programs, and use the code from both to create my own program that
>combines the features of both prior programs. So, I have Program A
>published under GPL2 and Program B published under GPL3 and I make
>Program C. Well, the problem is obvious, which license do I release
>Program C under. That's were the limitation comes in. Converting from
>one license to another is not simpley a matter of snapping your fingers
>and making it happen, it takes effort on the part of the main developer
>to acquire permissions from all the other developers to convert to a
>different license. For instance, in my hypothetical example above I
>would have to contact developer of Program A and gat a waiver to release
>my code under GPL3 and vice versa.
>
>I have not studied GPL3 extensively, but it does sound like a good topic
>for a paper.
>
>OP does inadvertently ask interesting questions, though he really knows
>nothing about the LAW, at least the way it is in US.
>
> - Bogdan
>

anon@anon.org (anon) writes:

>The problem is not what the GPL version 2 says or what version 3
>says. Even thogh it needs to be tested in court.

>Assuming the paragraghs in the GPL version 3 are legal then if you
>release a program after June 29, 2007, then all parts of a program
>using the GPL must meet the guidelines under the GPL version 3.

No.


>US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel document.

No. You simply state "I release this under GPL 2. That resolves any
ambiguity.

>That is, if one adopts the GPL you can only adopt the newest or lasted
>version. The GPL version 2 is only valid for pre-existing code that

Untrue. You can release your work under any license you wish (assuming it
is a legal license).

>adopted the GPL before June 29, 2007.

False. GPL is an example of a license you can release under. It is up to
you which license you wish to release your work under.


>In your example, the parts of program A must be allered to meet the
>rules of GPL 3 in order to use it in program C. Of course, assuming
>that Program C is release under the GPL. You could choose another
>license.

IF C is under 3 and A is under 2, then there may well be an abiguity and a
difficulty, since they have different restrictions.


>Now, if Program was created and release under the GPL before GPL
>version 3 was release. Then it will be under version 2. And one can

No it will be under whichever copy you said applied. You could release
under GPL1 if you wished.

>use it under the GPL 2. But if the program is altered in any way then it
>can no longer be release under the GPL version 2. It can be release under

False, you can release it under whatever license you wish, as long as it
complied with the previous license.

>other licenses, but if it is released under GPL the altered form must be
>under GPL version 3.

FAlse. It almost certainly cannot be under 3 since 3 is more restrictive
than 2 in certain cases. and 2 does not allow release under a more
restrictive license.


>That means that Linux Kernel before June 29, 2007 is under GPL
>version 2. But all releases after June 29, 2007 must be modified
>to adopt GPL version 3. Or it must adopted a different license.

False. The writers can release under whatever license they wish as long as
it is in compliance with the license of the prior stuff.

And in particular the kernel is under GPL 2
" Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
"

If you release under a license, someone else cannot change that license and
then claim that your work falls under that new license. Otherwise I could
alter the GPL and then claim that the kernel falls under it. This new
license would of course state that all profits made by anyone having to do
with the kernel had to be sent to me.
It is the copyright owner and only the copyright owner who can change the
terms of a license. The FSF certainly cannot do so.






>In <Xns997EAAE57D294x0054indexcom@yourdomain.com>, x0054 <x0054@index.com> writes:
>>anon@anon.org (anon) wrote in
>>news:7cFqi.376054$p47.299315@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL
>>> version 3. So what now?
>>>
>>> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be
>>> one active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June
>>> 29, 2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
>>> license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early
>>> 1090's.
>>>
>>> It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
>>> Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2.
>>> What matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the
>>> countries that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that
>>> all programs that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June,
>>> 2007 will now be under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the
>>> license file. Actually, the people who release the software can be
>>> sued if they do not update the file.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the non law educated people.
>>>
>>> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
>>> The old one is no longer valid. Or
>>>
>>> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
>>> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
>>> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
>>> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
>>> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
>>> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
>>> not you.
>>>
>>> Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
>>> accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!
>>>
>>
>>I am a law student in my second year, not quite a lawyer yet, but have
>>very good grasp of contract law. As far as I understand there is nothing
>>preventing someone from releasing a program under GPL1 or 2 or 3. GPL is
>>simply a model contract form that can be used by anyone.
>>
>>However, there is a slight problem. For instance, lets say I take two
>>GPL programs, and use the code from both to create my own program that
>>combines the features of both prior programs. So, I have Program A
>>published under GPL2 and Program B published under GPL3 and I make
>>Program C. Well, the problem is obvious, which license do I release
>>Program C under. That's were the limitation comes in. Converting from
>>one license to another is not simpley a matter of snapping your fingers
>>and making it happen, it takes effort on the part of the main developer
>>to acquire permissions from all the other developers to convert to a
>>different license. For instance, in my hypothetical example above I
>>would have to contact developer of Program A and gat a waiver to release
>>my code under GPL3 and vice versa.
>>
>>I have not studied GPL3 extensively, but it does sound like a good topic
>>for a paper.
>>
>>OP does inadvertently ask interesting questions, though he really knows
>>nothing about the LAW, at least the way it is in US.
>>
>> - Bogdan
>>

In <oepsi.71024$tB5.36196@edtnps90>, Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>anon@anon.org (anon) writes:
>
>>The problem is not what the GPL version 2 says or what version 3
>>says. Even thogh it needs to be tested in court.
>
>>Assuming the paragraghs in the GPL version 3 are legal then if you
>>release a program after June 29, 2007, then all parts of a program
>>using the GPL must meet the guidelines under the GPL version 3.
>
>No.

Another baby that is father need to send to his room.

>
>
>>US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel document.
>
>No. You simply state "I release this under GPL 2. That resolves any
>ambiguity.
>

If that was True I could State pres Bush jr did it. You must compy with
the law. And Bush jr should be impeached asap before more die in the gulf
war.

>>That is, if one adopts the GPL you can only adopt the newest or lasted
>>version. The GPL version 2 is only valid for pre-existing code that
>
>Untrue. You can release your work under any license you wish (assuming it
>is a legal license).
>
>>adopted the GPL before June 29, 2007.
>
>False. GPL is an example of a license you can release under. It is up to
>you which license you wish to release your work under.
>
>

Just saying that! Does not mean you can Believe it. Ask your Lawyer!


>>In your example, the parts of program A must be allered to meet the
>>rules of GPL 3 in order to use it in program C. Of course, assuming
>>that Program C is release under the GPL. You could choose another
>>license.
>
>IF C is under 3 and A is under 2, then there may well be an abiguity and a
>difficulty, since they have different restrictions.
>
>

>>Now, if Program was created and release under the GPL before GPL
>>version 3 was release. Then it will be under version 2. And one can
>
>No it will be under whichever copy you said applied. You could release
>under GPL1 if you wished.
>
>>use it under the GPL 2. But if the program is altered in any way then it
>>can no longer be release under the GPL version 2. It can be release under
>
>False, you can release it under whatever license you wish, as long as it
>complied with the previous license.
>
>>other licenses, but if it is released under GPL the altered form must be
>>under GPL version 3.
>
>FAlse. It almost certainly cannot be under 3 since 3 is more restrictive
>than 2 in certain cases. and 2 does not allow release under a more
>restrictive license.
>
>
>>That means that Linux Kernel before June 29, 2007 is under GPL
>>version 2. But all releases after June 29, 2007 must be modified
>>to adopt GPL version 3. Or it must adopted a different license.
>
>False. The writers can release under whatever license they wish as long as
>it is in compliance with the license of the prior stuff.





That the reason you must alter program A to fit the guidelines in GPL
version 3. It stops and removes all abiguity. That is the main reason that
after June 29, 2007 you can no longer release new or altered code
under GPL version 2.

And for all purposes the GPL version 1 is Dead. The listing is for
historical guides only. Because all program that used GPL version 1
have been removed from the net.

>
>And in particular the kernel is under GPL 2
>" Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>"
>
>If you release under a license, someone else cannot change that license and
>then claim that your work falls under that new license. Otherwise I could
>alter the GPL and then claim that the kernel falls under it. This new
>license would of course state that all profits made by anyone having to do
>with the kernel had to be sent to me.
>It is the copyright owner and only the copyright owner who can change the
>terms of a license. The FSF certainly cannot do so.

You can alter the license. The simplest answer is go close-source. That 's
how DOS was created by Bill Gates. He has admitted that back in the late
80's and early 90's. If the orginal license is GPL version 2 which allows
you to modify the code then it gives you right to alter the code to
fit a new license such as GPL version 3.

Actually, if you read the states on GNU and FSF sites it states that all
of the GNU packages will be updated to the new version 3 license over
the next few months. Of couse its more like it will take a year or two.
Those who choose to stay with the GPL version 2 will be pulled.

Do you research before speaking!




>
>
>
>
>
>
>>In <Xns997EAAE57D294x0054indexcom@yourdomain.com>, x0054 <x0054@index.com> writes:
>>>anon@anon.org (anon) wrote in
>>>news:7cFqi.376054$p47.299315@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>
>>>> Thrusday, the 26 of July, 2007: Linus Torvalds stated No to GPL
>>>> version 3. So what now?
>>>>
>>>> Based on the US and international contract laws. There can only be
>>>> one active GPL. So, once the FSF adopted the third version on June
>>>> 29, 2007 all previous versions aka GPL version 2 is no longer a valid
>>>> license. Just like GPL version 2 replaced version 1 back in early
>>>> 1090's.
>>>>
>>>> It does not matter that FSF states that there can be two GPL versions.
>>>> Or that Linus Torvalds states that LINUX will stay under version 2.
>>>> What matters is the LAW on the land that issued the license and the
>>>> countries that accept contract law. What contract LAW states is that
>>>> all programs that are released under the GPL after the 29, of June,
>>>> 2007 will now be under GPL 3, even if that have not updated the
>>>> license file. Actually, the people who release the software can be
>>>> sued if they do not update the file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the non law educated people.
>>>>
>>>> 1) It like a will, if you rewrite your will the new one is the law.
>>>> The old one is no longer valid. Or
>>>>
>>>> 2) Credit licenses new rules. Once you receive the new rules, the
>>>> useage of the card means you have accepted the new rules. If you
>>>> do not accept the new rules you must tell the credit card owners
>>>> and you will lose the useage of that card. Payments of a inactive
>>>> account may be based on old rules or you may be forced to pay
>>>> the card off now and that choice is up to the credit card owners
>>>> not you.
>>>>
>>>> Now from my understand this means that Linus Torvalds must either
>>>> accept the GPL 3 or adopt a different license for Linux!
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am a law student in my second year, not quite a lawyer yet, but have
>>>very good grasp of contract law. As far as I understand there is nothing
>>>preventing someone from releasing a program under GPL1 or 2 or 3. GPL is
>>>simply a model contract form that can be used by anyone.
>>>
>>>However, there is a slight problem. For instance, lets say I take two
>>>GPL programs, and use the code from both to create my own program that
>>>combines the features of both prior programs. So, I have Program A
>>>published under GPL2 and Program B published under GPL3 and I make
>>>Program C. Well, the problem is obvious, which license do I release
>>>Program C under. That's were the limitation comes in. Converting from
>>>one license to another is not simpley a matter of snapping your fingers
>>>and making it happen, it takes effort on the part of the main developer
>>>to acquire permissions from all the other developers to convert to a
>>>different license. For instance, in my hypothetical example above I
>>>would have to contact developer of Program A and gat a waiver to release
>>>my code under GPL3 and vice versa.
>>>
>>>I have not studied GPL3 extensively, but it does sound like a good topic
>>>for a paper.
>>>
>>>OP does inadvertently ask interesting questions, though he really knows
>>>nothing about the LAW, at least the way it is in US.
>>>
>>> - Bogdan
>>>
>

anon@anon.org (anon) wrote in
news:S2Ssi.17748$ax1.5638@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> In <oepsi.71024$tB5.36196@edtnps90>, Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca>
> writes:
>>anon@anon.org (anon) writes:
>>
>>>The problem is not what the GPL version 2 says or what version 3
>>>says. Even thogh it needs to be tested in court.
>>
>>>Assuming the paragraghs in the GPL version 3 are legal then if you
>>>release a program after June 29, 2007, then all parts of a program
>>>using the GPL must meet the guidelines under the GPL version 3.
>>
>>No.
>
> Another baby that is father need to send to his room.
>
>>
>>
>>>US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel
>>>document.
>>
>>No. You simply state "I release this under GPL 2. That resolves any
>>ambiguity.
>>
>
> If that was True I could State pres Bush jr did it. You must compy
> with the law. And Bush jr should be impeached asap before more die in
> the gulf war.
>
>>>That is, if one adopts the GPL you can only adopt the newest or
>>>lasted version. The GPL version 2 is only valid for pre-existing
>>>code that
>>
>>Untrue. You can release your work under any license you wish (assuming
>>it is a legal license).
>>
>>>adopted the GPL before June 29, 2007.
>>
>>False. GPL is an example of a license you can release under. It is up
>>to you which license you wish to release your work under.
>>
>>
>
> Just saying that! Does not mean you can Believe it. Ask your Lawyer!
>
>
>>>In your example, the parts of program A must be allered to meet the
>>>rules of GPL 3 in order to use it in program C. Of course, assuming
>>>that Program C is release under the GPL. You could choose another
>>>license.
>>
>>IF C is under 3 and A is under 2, then there may well be an abiguity
>>and a difficulty, since they have different restrictions.
>>
>>
>
>>>Now, if Program was created and release under the GPL before GPL
>>>version 3 was release. Then it will be under version 2. And one can
>>
>>No it will be under whichever copy you said applied. You could release
>>under GPL1 if you wished.
>>
>>>use it under the GPL 2. But if the program is altered in any way then
>>>it can no longer be release under the GPL version 2. It can be
>>>release under
>>
>>False, you can release it under whatever license you wish, as long as
>>it complied with the previous license.
>>
>>>other licenses, but if it is released under GPL the altered form must
>>>be under GPL version 3.
>>
>>FAlse. It almost certainly cannot be under 3 since 3 is more
>>restrictive than 2 in certain cases. and 2 does not allow release
>>under a more restrictive license.
>>
>>
>>>That means that Linux Kernel before June 29, 2007 is under GPL
>>>version 2. But all releases after June 29, 2007 must be modified
>>>to adopt GPL version 3. Or it must adopted a different license.
>>
>>False. The writers can release under whatever license they wish as
>>long as it is in compliance with the license of the prior stuff.
>
>
>
>
>
> That the reason you must alter program A to fit the guidelines in GPL
> version 3. It stops and removes all abiguity. That is the main reason
> that after June 29, 2007 you can no longer release new or altered code
> under GPL version 2.
>
> And for all purposes the GPL version 1 is Dead. The listing is for
> historical guides only. Because all program that used GPL version 1
> have been removed from the net.
>
>>
>>And in particular the kernel is under GPL 2
>>" Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the
>>kernel
>> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>>"
>>
>>If you release under a license, someone else cannot change that
>>license and then claim that your work falls under that new license.
>>Otherwise I could alter the GPL and then claim that the kernel falls
>>under it. This new license would of course state that all profits made
>>by anyone having to do with the kernel had to be sent to me.
>>It is the copyright owner and only the copyright owner who can change
>>the terms of a license. The FSF certainly cannot do so.
>
> You can alter the license. The simplest answer is go close-source.
> That 's how DOS was created by Bill Gates. He has admitted that back
> in the late 80's and early 90's. If the orginal license is GPL
> version 2 which allows you to modify the code then it gives you right
> to alter the code to fit a new license such as GPL version 3.
>
> Actually, if you read the states on GNU and FSF sites it states that
> all of the GNU packages will be updated to the new version 3 license
> over the next few months. Of couse its more like it will take a year
> or two. Those who choose to stay with the GPL version 2 will be
> pulled.
>
> Do you research before speaking!


I am an actual law student, and I am stating with absolute certainty that
you can release your program under any GPL version you would like,
including GPL 1, as long as you comply with legal obligation that comes
with any 3rd party code. If there are no such obligations, you can release
it under any GPL _model_ license you would like. If you find some of
Stallman's early GPL notes, you can release it under those. GPL is a
_model_ license. However, as I have mentioned, problems arise when you try
to comply with obligations of both GPL 3 and GPL 2 licenses. However, the
only serious problems that would arise are in DRM related situations any
way, so it's a small chunk of the overall open source movement.

On a personal note I tend to agree with Linus, GPL 2 is more practical then
3.

- Bogdan

anon writes:
> US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel document

And here we have the core of your error. The GPL as published by the FSF
is not a contract between me and anyone. It is a model license, which the
FSF suggests I copy and use as a license for my programs. If I choose to
do so my programs are then licensed under the terms of the license I
attached them, which happen to be copies of documents published by the
FSF. The publication of another model license by the FSF is irrelevant to
my license is unless my license contains terms referring to it.

Example: you lease an apartment from a landlord who uses a model lease
supplied by a landlord's association he belongs to. During the term of the
lease the association publishs a new model license with different terms.
Are you and he suddenly bound by the terms of the new model license? Of
course not.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:

> anon writes:
>> US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel document
>
> And here we have the core of your error. The GPL as published by the FSF
> is not a contract between me and anyone. It is a model license, which the
> FSF suggests I copy and use as a license for my programs. If I choose to
> do so my programs are then licensed under the terms of the license I
> attached them, which happen to be copies of documents published by the
> FSF. The publication of another model license by the FSF is irrelevant to
> my license is unless my license contains terms referring to it.
>
> Example: you lease an apartment from a landlord who uses a model lease
> supplied by a landlord's association he belongs to. During the term of the
> lease the association publishs a new model license with different terms.
> Are you and he suddenly bound by the terms of the new model license? Of
> course not.

This part may confuse some people. Including me. This is in the gpl2:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation.

Then in your sources if you put: ( without the "or any later version" )

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation version 2 of the License.

Does this mean that other people can not change it to gpl3.
But if you use:

the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any
later version.

Then someone else can release it as gpl3. And copies of their release
follow gpl3 rules.

Or am I way off and you are supposed to leave the line:

the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

And then anybody can release your project as gpl3.


So I will dig a bit...be back soon...I'm back.

I looked at a couple of packages dejagnu perl-5.8.8 procps-3.2.6
util-linux-2.12r vim70 zlib-1.2.3
In these packages, many sources are a gpl. And there are files with no
reference to gpl. Of the gpl licensed files most were like this:

the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.

Most of perl is that way, as most files reference the README file which has
the above.

But in the other packages there were many files with:

This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, version 2.
or

This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License.

So it appears to make a difference. Am I totally confused?

stonerfish