headers
Charles Wilson | 2 Jul 2010 06:46
Picon

Re: MinGW license

On 6/30/2010 7:29 PM, Greg Chicares wrote:
> On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from 
>> Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on 
>> our own.
> 
> Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements,
> but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is*
> our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander.

Well, Earnie and I (mostly Earnie) are trying to track down Norlander.
The question is, once (if) we DO contact him, what do we want to change
the license TO?

plain old PD?
unlicense?
PD + mingw64-ish ZPL fallback?
punt and use a more...traditional non-copyleft license like MIT/X or
BSD-3-clause?

> BTW, I looked in 'w32api-3.13-mingw32-dev.tar.gz' (latest copy I happen
> to have laying around) and it doesn't seem to contain this README.

Confirmed. This is a packaging bug.  We should either include the README
in the -dev package (installed into share/w32api/3.xx/), OR provide it
in a separate -lic package (which I think is ok, just like all the other
packages. It'd be up to the end-user to decide whether or not to dl the
license file; and it's painfully obvious exactly where to get that license).

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Earnie | 2 Jul 2010 14:23
Picon

Re: MinGW license

Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 6/30/2010 7:29 PM, Greg Chicares wrote:
>> On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from
>>> Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on
>>> our own.
>>
>> Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements,
>> but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is*
>> our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander.
>
> Well, Earnie and I (mostly Earnie) are trying to track down Norlander.
> The question is, once (if) we DO contact him, what do we want to change
> the license TO?
>
> plain old PD?
> unlicense?
> PD + mingw64-ish ZPL fallback?
> punt and use a more...traditional non-copyleft license like MIT/X or
> BSD-3-clause?
>

Or just use the ZPL as the license with a PD statement as the 
COPYRIGHT.txt file.  So, reading the ZPL, I'm wandering how it helps the 
issue of countries who don't recognize PD as legal.  What does Kai use 
for his accompanying copyright file text?

Earnie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Greg Chicares | 2 Jul 2010 15:14
Picon
Favicon

Re: MinGW license

On 2010-07-02 04:46Z, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 6/30/2010 7:29 PM, Greg Chicares wrote:
>> On 2010-06-30 19:13Z, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> I think we're in a bind, here, without explicit permission from 
>>> Norlander or his heirs/assigns, to change the license or assert PD on 
>>> our own.
>> 
>> Indeed. It sounds like we can't add restrictions or remove requirements,
>> but we must always include the original license...so perhaps that *is*
>> our license, and it can never be changed except by Norlander.
> 
> Well, Earnie and I (mostly Earnie) are trying to track down Norlander.
> The question is, once (if) we DO contact him, what do we want to change
> the license TO?

The original seems very close to a 3- or even 2-clause BSD license, so...

> plain old PD?

That would be asking him to give up rights that he apparently preferred
to retain.

> unlicense?

Same issue as PD.

> PD + mingw64-ish ZPL fallback?

Same issue. In addition, this would be a unique hybrid. When I encounter,
say, a BSD license, I know what it means; I scan the words to make sure
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane