From shotwelm at musc.edu  Tue Apr 27 16:16:15 2010
From: shotwelm at musc.edu (Matt Shotwell)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:16:15 -0400
Subject: [Rd] serial connection patch
In-Reply-To: <DDC342F3-56B2-4199-95B0-CEFDC387F0A5@cbs.dk>
References: <u2i6c35a4fc1004200733rc5cbfamc721f1ea7409e008@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2253EB4-D23D-4694-B236-2406CA8D92B7@r-project.org>
	<1271778684.14629.19.camel@deacon>
	<121B27F2-8129-4599-9C97-A881EE25525E@r-project.org>
	<1271812624.4569.69.camel@deacon> <4BCED3CF.3070309@sciviews.org>
	<5CEA8415-2B0B-4B72-A3AD-FBB0F2473DC1@r-project.org>
	<1272299283.3901.57.camel@deacon>
	<7A7340FA-EA0E-4F98-9C08-A4B6358668F6@r-project.org>
	<1272371579.4721.35.camel@deacon> <4BD6DBC2.7040405@gmail.com>
	<DDC342F3-56B2-4199-95B0-CEFDC387F0A5@cbs.dk>
Message-ID: <1272377775.4721.54.camel@deacon>

Oh, I just put that there for the bit about "WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY" :). I
am satisfied with GPLv2 and have updated the license notice to reflect a
change from GPLv3 to GPLv2 or later.

-Matt

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:33 -0400, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> 
> > On 27/04/2010 8:32 AM, Matt Shotwell wrote:
> >> Simon, 
> >> Thanks for reviewing it! All the modified files are under the GPL
> >> version 2 (except the configure script). According to the GPLv2, I am
> >> granted permission to modify and redistribute the code as long as I make
> >> a notice in the files of their modification and the date (which I have
> >> not done yet). As I understand (I'm not lawyer), the copyright is
> >> necessary for, and does not alter the terms of the GPLv2. Is there
> >> something specific you're thinking of that invalidates this?
> >>  
> > 
> > I don't know what Simon noticed, but I saw that you had indicated a GPL v3 license on the web page.  GPL2 is not compatible with GPL3, so that makes your contribution unusable by us.
> 
> Yes, this is a bit messy, but some got sufficiently annoyed by the added restrictions of GPL3 that they insist on keeping their contributions GPL2, so adding GPL3-only stuff is off limits. 
> 
> I don't think we have a problem with merging user contributions that are licensed "GPL2 or later". A copyright transfer gives some legal clarification, but is only really required in case the R Foundation wants to (dual-) relicense under a GPL incompatible license, or need to be able to legally defend users' code against infringement. The former is highly unlikely, and it would require major disentanglement in other areas anyway, and I don't see contributions of this order of magnitude as a target of legal dispute either. 
> 
> > 
> > Duncan Murdoch
>



[Rd] serial connection patch
Matt Shotwell