GPL3 Re: packaging

[Sergio Monteiro Basto]

On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 15:11 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> It has *nothing* to do with the version of tar affecting the licensing.
> 
> The X package that I downloaded just revealed a bug in gnutar (GPLV2)  
> that is fixed in gnutar (GPLV3), but we can't trivially update to the  
> new gnutar to address this bug because of the license issue, nor can  
> we even look at the code changes... so we need to fix the bug in the  
> GPLV2 version.  I was just asking what version of tar was used to  
> create the tarball, so I could reproduce the bug without relying on  
> outside tarballs.

Not war but, what you had write just give me reasons to adopt GPLv3 , as
soon as possible. If gnutar in under license "GPLV2 or upper", which
might be , make GPLv3 retrocompatible, so maybe you will need refectory
all tar if you don't want use free software.  




> Nothing to see here.  No license flame wars to partake in.  Please  
> just go back to your normal routine.
> 
> --Jeremy
> 
> 
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 11:25, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:22:09AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 20:12 +0200, Timo Jyrinki wrote:
> >>>> 2008/2/13, Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio at sergiomb.no-ip.org>:
> >>>>> I'd like see xorg under GPLv3
> >>>> GPLv3 consideration is mainly only useful for projects that already
> >>>> use GPL(v2). As X.org is MIT-licensed, like already stated, there's
> >>>> nothing to discuss.
> >>>
> >>> yap sorry , for dummy question.
> >>>
> >>> but still not understand why can't use gnutar in GPLv3 ?
> >>
> >> Sounds like a problem with the license restrictions of their OS/ 
> >> distro.
> >> X.Org doesn't object to using GPLv3'd versions of gnutar, but each  
> >> OS/distro
> >> creator has to decide for themselves to accept the GPLv3 terms if  
> >> they
> >> want to include software covering it - that's their problem, not  
> >> ours.
> >
> > I may have fallen off on a curve, here, but if the issue is "does  
> > using
> > a GPLd tar utility to package our non-GPL package have any effect at
> > all on its licensing?", I'm pretty sure the answer is "no".  I'm sure
> > you knew that, Alan, but I don't know whether the OP gets it or not.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> > -- 
> > Jay R. Ashworth                   Baylink                      jra at baylink.com
> > Designer                     The Things I  
> > Think                       RFC 2100
> > Ashworth & Associates     http:// 
> > baylink.pitas.com                     '87 e24
> > St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1  
> > 727 647 1274
> >
> > 	     Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
> > 	     Those who count the vote decide everything.
> > 	       -- (Joseph Stalin)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xorg mailing list
> > xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
-- 
Sérgio M.B.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080215/b60c675e/attachment.bin>