From pbrochard at common-lisp.net  Thu Feb  2 23:20:45 2012
From: pbrochard at common-lisp.net (Philippe Brochard)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:20:45 +0100
Subject: [clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change? (again)
Message-ID: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>

Hi list,

On a Madnificent request, can we vote for CLFSWM licence change?

Options are:

1) Stay with the actual GPLv3 'or any later version'

2) Switch to the LLGPL

3) Switch to a BSD like licence.

-----

I vote for the (1) Stay with the GPLv3.

What are your opinions?

Best regards,

Philippe



From stayvoid at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 00:28:59 2012
From: stayvoid at gmail.com (Stayvoid)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 03:28:59 +0300
Subject: [clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change? (again)
In-Reply-To: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>
References: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>
Message-ID: <CAK5fS_GSqsb8zakZMUPjEHyTaVuiraUwr2wZjpcoKjyFwr19QQ@mail.gmail.com>

1) Stay with the actual GPLv3 'or any later version'



From madnificent at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 00:51:30 2012
From: madnificent at gmail.com (madnificent)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:51:30 +0100
Subject: [clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change? (again)
In-Reply-To: <CAK5fS_GSqsb8zakZMUPjEHyTaVuiraUwr2wZjpcoKjyFwr19QQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>
	<CAK5fS_GSqsb8zakZMUPjEHyTaVuiraUwr2wZjpcoKjyFwr19QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAkhoAY0=kdOtOs=QU=h47arK6BG0SvMxDBy9_mktm4VHFvDRQ@mail.gmail.com>

As none of the issues I have with the current license have been proven
to be incorrect, my vote is obvious:

3) Switch to a BSD like licence.


On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Stayvoid <stayvoid at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Stay with the actual GPLv3 'or any later version'
>
> _______________________________________________
> clfswm-devel mailing list
> clfswm-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfswm-devel



From Philipp.Kroos at t-online.de  Fri Feb  3 11:59:41 2012
From: Philipp.Kroos at t-online.de (Philipp Kroos)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:59:41 +0100
Subject: [clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change? (again)
In-Reply-To: <CAAkhoAY0=kdOtOs=QU=h47arK6BG0SvMxDBy9_mktm4VHFvDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>
	<CAK5fS_GSqsb8zakZMUPjEHyTaVuiraUwr2wZjpcoKjyFwr19QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAkhoAY0=kdOtOs=QU=h47arK6BG0SvMxDBy9_mktm4VHFvDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120203115941.GA24466@Vostro>

Hi,

this is my first post on this list, but considering the subject I'll 
keep it short:

1) Stay with the actual GPLv3 'or any later version'



I read all of your discussion about the GPL
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:51:30AM +0100, madnificent wrote:
> As none of the issues I have with the current license have been proven
> to be incorrect, my vote is obvious:
> 
> 3) Switch to a BSD like licence.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Stayvoid <stayvoid at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) Stay with the actual GPLv3 'or any later version'
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > clfswm-devel mailing list
> > clfswm-devel at common-lisp.net
> > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfswm-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clfswm-devel mailing list
> clfswm-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfswm-devel



From ales.guzik at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 14:10:17 2012
From: ales.guzik at gmail.com (Ales Guzik)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:10:17 +0300
Subject: [clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change? (again)
In-Reply-To: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>
References: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net>
Message-ID: <CADT2y-3NBtK48V-o7x39pXL6jpEF81ZFwCU-hH1_WDV922g=ow@mail.gmail.com>

Mine for 2) Switch to the LLGPL


On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Philippe Brochard
<pbrochard at common-lisp.net> wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> On a Madnificent request, can we vote for CLFSWM licence change?
>
> Options are:
>
> 1) Stay with the actual GPLv3 'or any later version'
>
> 2) Switch to the LLGPL
>
> 3) Switch to a BSD like licence.
>
> -----
>
> I vote for the (1) Stay with the GPLv3.
>
> What are your opinions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philippe
>
> _______________________________________________
> clfswm-devel mailing list
> clfswm-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfswm-devel



-- 
Regards,
Ales Guzik
------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: ales.guzik at gmail.com
skype: ales-guzik
tel: +375 29 5751103



From dochang at gmail.com  Tue Feb 21 21:50:04 2012
From: dochang at gmail.com (Desmond O. Chang)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:50:04 +0800
Subject: [clfswm-devel] Fwd:  CLFSWM licence change? (again)
References: <87r4yc960i.fsf@common-lisp.net> <87zkcqe3gq.fsf@common-lisp.net>
Message-ID: <22e7e828-85b8-4606-bd3f-f1fa063ba3d5@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Philippe,

I didn't check my mailbox until yesterday, sorry.

I've been using CLFSWM as a standalone X window manager.  I think GPL
is enough for me, a trivial user, although I don't mind BSD/MIT/LLGPL.

If I'm the maintainer, I would consider changing license *IFF* the
project *really* needs a better license.

There're several open source implementations in *nix world.  I'll
always use an open source one to run CLFSWM *unless* CLFSWM cannot run
in all of them.  So, I think it's almost impossible to run CLFSWM in
the non-free ones (for me).

Changing license is harmless (maybe?).  But GPL is enough.

Thank you for asking me for my opinion.  In fact, I tried to keep
silence during the discussion.  You're the maintainer.  Do as you
wish.  I'll accept any license as long as it's still open source. :)


BTW, since some code in CLFSWM was copied from StumpWM, I think CLFSWM
cannot change the license easily.


Thanks,
Des