Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in
there:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve
Technology].
===
Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you are on this list for a long time, I would expect that you know
that a company was named only because this company did violate the GPL.
The version of cdrecord shipped by named company was clearly marked as
modified, only you would expect a
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in
there:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve
Technology].
===
As the
Looks like you did not get my point: why should there be a need
to use a non GPL variant?
I can think of a simple reason: to grant rights which the GPL doesn't
grant, in return for some cash for further development. There probably
are other valid reasons too.
[cdrecord license:]
As you are
Greg Wooledge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve
Technology].
===
I am wondering how is
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:41:20PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you cannot
give someone else exclusive rights anymore.
That is not correct.
The copyright holder can give the code to Microsoft and say, Here, use
this in the next version of
Greg Wooledge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:41:20PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you cannot
give someone else exclusive rights anymore.
That is not correct.
The copyright holder can give the code to Microsoft
Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri 19 Aug 2005 00:32:53 NZST +1200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As the program claims to use the GPL, such note would not be legal
and commercial use cannot be limited to a single company.
Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alvaro Lopez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in
there:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve
Technology].
===
I am wondering how is it possible to this be compatible with the GPL
Alvaro Lopez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in
there:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve
Technology].
===
As
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Andy (i guess) states on
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/solaris.com.html
---
Clarification Note
Commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris
means that if a 3rd
Hi all,
I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in
there:
===
Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms
for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve
Technology].
===
I am wondering how is it possible to this be compatible
Hi,
Andy (i guess) states on
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/solaris.com.html
---
Clarification Note
Commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris
means that if a 3rd party would like to include
14 matches
Mail list logo
