Peter writes:
However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a difference?
I assume you meant to write ...he wouldn't sue...?
Most of the authors who publish under whacky non-free licenses probably
wouldn't sue. Lawsuits are not the only reason to be careful, though. We
also want to
Ben Pfaff writes:
This clause in particular I find confusing. I'm not at all sure what it
means:
It means that Sun can put the Program in Solaris and distribute it under
the Solaris license, but that in doing so they agree to take responsibility
for any lawsuits that result.
--
John Hasler
Joseph Carter writes:
Only the lawyers at IBM could take a two paragraph BSDish license and
make 9 pages out of it.
Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
license, but you must make source available under the IBM license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcelo E. Magallon writes:
I browsed IBM's site, but I couldn't find any reference that claims this
license is OpenSource...
I don't know if it is Open Source, but IMHO it is free. I don't like that
final sentences about compliabce with laws, but I think we can live with
it. I *really* like
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:46:13PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Only the lawyers at IBM could take a two paragraph BSDish license and
make 9 pages out of it.
Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
license, but you must make source available under the IBM
On May 28, Darren O. Benham wrote:
From what I read in FSF/GNU documentation, it's only necessary for
segnifigant contributions, not a few lines of code. I think all the
major contributors to Abi are employees of AbiSource.. Every thing else
are seperate libraries.
... which may have their
I wrotes:
Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
license, but you must make source available under the IBM license.
Joseph Carter writes:
You just described the BSD license...
The BSD license (less warrantee disclaimer):
Redistribution and use in source
Chris Lawrence writes:
Is the LGPL (AbiWord uses glib internally) Qt-compatible?
The LGPL is everything compatible. That is its purpose.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:00:22PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Um.. no... it's more like:
developers to debian-legal: Is the GPL compatible with QT? I.e., is
it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?
Debian-legal to developers: Not that we can see. QT and GPL are
incompatible.
I consider
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:54:37PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
From what I read in FSF/GNU documentation, it's only necessary for
segnifigant contributions, not a few lines of code. I think all the
major contributors to Abi are employees of AbiSource.. Every thing else
are seperate
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the system clause? Afterall, we know
several GPL:d apps that link them on motif, for example ddd.
It can, however
to quote GPL:
the source code distributed need not include
anything that is
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:00:22PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Um.. no... it's more like:
developers to debian-legal: Is the GPL compatible with QT? I.e., is
it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?
Debian-legal to
Montreal Sat May 29 09:55:38 1999
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Riku Voipio wrote:
Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the system clause?
It might, but that will make no difference. That clause would let other
people distribute GPL'd programs linked with Qt. It wouldn't help us.
Montreal Sat May 29 10:03:30 1999
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is hotly debated, some people say that nothing X-based should be
considered part of the operating system, others say that Qt, gtk, and X
are all part of Linux, and others still say that Qt would have to be at
least
John Hasler wrote:
Peter writes:
However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a difference?
I assume you meant to write ...he wouldn't sue...?
Sorry. Right.
Most of the authors who publish under whacky non-free licenses probably
wouldn't sue. Lawsuits are not the only reason
Richard Braakman wrote:
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
Additionally, you are granted permission to
assume, for the purposes of distributing this program in object code or
executable form under
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 08:03:11AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Riku Voipio writes:
Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the system clause?
Because it isn't priority essential.
Neither is GCC nor kernel... The border is drawn in the water.
I know, both are under GPL, but GPL mention's kernel and
18 matches
Mail list logo
