On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:13:47PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> (still...if I answer 'yes' it looks a bit silly...)
Urm... since when do you care? ;-)
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:22:55AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The preferred operation of law is striking, not carving exceptions.
> "clause rejected" complies with this. "link with xforms" doesn't.
OK, I think I see what you're saying: the implicit license people used
was effectively,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:45:23AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anyway, I think that we should not be overly concerned by that. Let's
> > just stick with what FSF proposes.
>
> Again, I think the change right now would be a bad idea. We don't have
> a problem, have nothing to gain, and
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:23:07PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I guess so. My default interface is always: "No!"
Lars, would you please _not_ apply the following patch...
SCNR,
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "dochawk" == dochawk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dochawk> I'd stick to what we have until there's a problem or the
dochawk> other language becomes universal.
Note that what we have now in the code is the wording from the FSF.
John's patch is intended to update the www site to read the sam
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:39:41AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> right. We went through that before I wrote these.
>
> The bottom line, I think, is that we have nothing to gain by the
> change, may not even legally be able to make the change, and that there
> is a potential downside to th
> "dochawk" == dochawk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dochawk> John jabbered,
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:12:17PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I'm not really certain that we can do that.
>> the new text is the text directly suggested on the GNU website and
>> has been checked by the
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I propose the following to match COPYING. IT's also clearer IMHO
I'd say: just commit it.
JMarc
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> | I'm not trying to start a GPL-vs-BSD flamewar here, but why
Lars> not | release it under the modified BSD license? Then the
Lars> linking problem | would be out of the world once and for all,
Lars> and its pretty much in | li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
AR> Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model of how to
AR> allow linking to Qt2 on Windows? On Unix there is no problem with
AR> either GPL or QPL as I understand it. So we would still need to
AR> mention Qt2. What hap
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:23:21PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
>
> Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model of how to
> allow linking to Qt2 on Windows?
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if the general exception is good. law is weird.
I'm not eve
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > To limit it to XForms is perhaps not good, we should add a clause for
> > QT2 as well.
>
> Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> To limit it to XForms is perhaps not good, we should add a clause for
> QT2 as well.
Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
> And as time arises other gui tollkits that is used.
yes
> | I'm a lot more comfortable without adding the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:12:17PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not really certain that we can do that.
the new text is the text directly suggested on the GNU website and has
been checked by their laywers.
Again, lyx/COPYING already has this.
I assume you're a laywer - are you a cop
I propose the following to match COPYING. IT's also clearer IMHO
regards
john
Index: about/license.php3
===
RCS file: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot/www-user/about/license.php3,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.4 license.php3
--- abou
15 matches
Mail list logo
