In message 874owy8qth@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney
ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes:
Basically he should put there (c) Hubert and licence GPLv3+.
Small nit (and all in my layman's understanding): Copyright notices,
when they were
Robert Millan wrote:
For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD,
the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then the
Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work
as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes:
I was really meaning that the author SHOULD claim copyright...
[…]
if there's no claim of copyright by the owner, then it's a bugger if
you want to use your Free Software rights - it makes it hard for you
to exercise them because you
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD,
the second uses LGPL 2.1 or later and the third uses GPL 3 then
the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.]
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote:
Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to
re-distribute the included firmware explicitly.
The GPLv2 requires that distributors provide source code in
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 +
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote:
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.]
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Daniel Knabl wrote:
Seems to me that Broadcom Inc. does really allow Debian to
re-distribute the
On 04/09/2009 03:57 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only,
*practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL,
so better to explicit write also the LGPL.
Sounds reasonable. Hubert, can we do that? Let me know
[I hope I managed to figure out who I should include in the Cc:
list...]
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:58:07 -0400 Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On 04/09/2009 03:57 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only,
*practically* the file is only GPL, but
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 +
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote:
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.]
I don't need to be CC'd, thanks. M-F-T set accordingly.
On Thu, Apr 09,
On 04/09/2009 06:13 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think the clean way is adding a note that explicitly states that the
file is a (possibly modified) translation intoprogramming_language_2
of code originally written inprogramming_language_1 and that the
original code is
Copyright ©years
On Apr 10, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote:
I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of
program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the
binary directly. I suspect that this is the case for any reasonable
programmer. Thus, we
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 03:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 10, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote:
I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to modify any sort of
program, firmware or not, using C or assembly rather than editing the
binary directly. I suspect
Robert Millan wrote:
And so on. * Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere is simply false,
Alright. So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting
with The new file seems to be asserting... above).
Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem, I
will
13 matches
Mail list logo
