Discussion for Tom Lord's `Arch' file revisioning system

headers Andy Tai | 2 Sep 2007 10:00

minor fixes in the development branch:

  * fix for Bug 18133, tla add should not create files
  * fix for Bug 18132, tla add should not add control files

--

-- 
Andy Tai, atai <at> atai.org

Hi, I am thinking of putting future releases of GNU Arch under the GNU
GPL v3 or later versions of the GPL as published by the Free Software
Foundation.  I would like to see if there is anyone (GNU Arch users,
past contributors) who may have any issue with this.

For any comments on this issue please reply to this mail list or to me
(atai <at> atai.org) and cc Robert Collins (robert.collins <at> canonical.com).

Thanks,
Andy

--

-- 
Andy Tai, atai <at> atai.org

Andy Tai writes:

 > Hi, I am thinking of putting future releases of GNU Arch under the GNU
 > GPL v3 or later versions of the GPL as published by the Free Software
 > Foundation.

Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of GPLv2 code
that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for now) XEmacs?

What's so wrong with GPLv2?

Andy Tai wrote:
> Hi, I am thinking of putting future releases of GNU Arch under the GNU
> GPL v3 or later versions of the GPL as published by the Free Software
> Foundation.  I would like to see if there is anyone (GNU Arch users,
> past contributors) who may have any issue with this.
>
> For any comments on this issue please reply to this mail list or to me
> (atai <at> atai.org) and cc Robert Collins (robert.collins <at> canonical.com).
>
>   

I am pretty sure that a substantial portion of the GPL code
in the distribution is copyright by me, so I guess it might
be helpful to reassure you:

My intention for that code was "GPLv2 or (at your discretion)
any later version as published by the FSF".   So, no objections
from over here.  My word is good.

> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>   

And thank you for your continued support.

-t

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of GPLv2 code
> that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for now) XEmacs?
>
> What's so wrong with GPLv2?
>   

Ask Eben?   or ask the DRM wonks at FSF?     They, along with Microsoft's
interesting behavior in response, have given me enough reason to stand
in solidarity on this issue.   v3 doesn't hurt anything and there are
pretty good arguments in favor of it.

I don't know about XEmacs but the Linux kernel doesn't have the
legal degree of freedom to move to v3 even if Linus wanted to -- so
it's kind of a moot point.

I don't care *that* much about license compatibility with existing
code.    All but an a ridiculously tiny amount of the really good
code I'll see in my lifetime has yet to be written.

-t

>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> Gnu-arch-users <at> gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

Tom, thank you.   Your code, the largest portion of Arch, has been
assigned to the FSF. Nonetheless, your agreement to this is always the
most welcome!

Andy

On 9/7/07, Thomas Lord <lord <at> emf.net> wrote:

> I am pretty sure that a substantial portion of the GPL code
> in the distribution is copyright by me, so I guess it might
> be helpful to reassure you:
>
> My intention for that code was "GPLv2 or (at your discretion)
> any later version as published by the FSF".   So, no objections
> from over here.  My word is good.
>
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
>
> And thank you for your continued support.
>
> -t
>

OK, the GNU Project is moving to GPL v3.  Also in the context of Arch,
I don't see Arch links directly to the Linux kernel or XEmacs.

On 9/7/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen <at> xemacs.org> wrote:
> Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of GPLv2 code
> that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for now) XEmacs?
>
> What's so wrong with GPLv2?
>

<div>
Andy Tai wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid205815110709071439u1fed308drad2e9cf7fbf1b937 <at> mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
  Tom, thank you.   Your code, the largest portion of Arch, has been
assigned to the FSF. 
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Arch code itself, yes.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think hackerlab is still mine.&nbsp;&nbsp; It makes for<br>
little nevermind either way, though.<br><br>
-t<br><br><br><br><br><br><blockquote cite="mid205815110709071439u1fed308drad2e9cf7fbf1b937 <at> mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
  Nonetheless, your agreement to this is always the
most welcome!

Andy

On 9/7/07, Thomas Lord <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lord <at> emf.net">&lt;lord <at> emf.net&gt;</a> wrote:

  <blockquote type="cite">
    I am pretty sure that a substantial portion of the GPL code
in the distribution is copyright by me, so I guess it might
be helpful to reassure you:

My intention for that code was "GPLv2 or (at your discretion)
any later version as published by the FSF".   So, no objections
from over here.  My word is good.

    <blockquote type="cite">
      Thanks,
Andy

    </blockquote>

And thank you for your continued support.

-t

  </blockquote>

</blockquote>
<br>
</div>

Thanks for this information.   This is important.

On 9/7/07, Thomas Lord <lord <at> emf.net> wrote:

>
>  Arch code itself, yes.   I think hackerlab is still mine.   It makes for
>  little nevermind either way, though.
>
>  -t

--

-- 
Andy Tai, atai <at> atai.org

> Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of GPLv2 code
> that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for now) XEmacs?

Last I looked XEmacs still was distributed under the GPL>=2, so it is
perfectly compatible with GPLv3.

        Stefan

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

1	March 2009
4	December 2008
5	November 2008
1	September 2008
1	August 2008
2	July 2008
1	May 2008
3	April 2008
8	March 2008
11	January 2008
5	December 2007
38	November 2007
13	October 2007
28	September 2007
16	August 2007
10	June 2007
4	April 2007
10	February 2007
18	January 2007
18	December 2006
1	November 2006
25	October 2006
27	September 2006
12	August 2006
28	July 2006
80	June 2006
67	May 2006
145	April 2006
77	March 2006
109	February 2006
244	January 2006
146	December 2005
204	November 2005
282	October 2005
180	September 2005
174	August 2005
148	July 2005
141	June 2005
171	May 2005
282	April 2005
419	March 2005
313	February 2005
153	January 2005
191	December 2004
674	November 2004
775	October 2004
1459	September 2004
857	August 2004
994	July 2004
833	June 2004
1056	May 2004
996	April 2004
1240	March 2004
872	February 2004
1183	January 2004
1199	December 2003
788	November 2003
1364	October 2003
2145	September 2003
984	August 2003
1853	July 2003
970	June 2003
815	May 2003
274	April 2003
1085	March 2003
832	February 2003
1392	January 2003
911	December 2002
464	November 2002
368	October 2002
5	January 2000

Re: recent changes

GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later

Re: GNU Arch moves to GPL v3 or later