Re: [ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: How about this one? I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks okay to me. Michael - Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] - If we do something like this, I'd rather suggest a text like: The GPL is often a source of missunderstanding and confusion. As we understand the license, redistribution and use of LyX in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted without any additional conditions. Even more, we would explicitely like to encourage people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK, Qt or Win32. If that is still ok for Debian, I could live with it. Michael? If that isn't good enough for anyone, they really need to consider why they think it's not. You can't get much better than that, with or without the first sentance. I have to ask though, why anyone in their right friggin mind would want to port something as useful (to others, I have no need for it myself) as lyx to something as UGLY as Motif chuckle pgpr8GpIHCOqy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 01:44:18PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK, Qt or Win32. `... and distributing the resulting binary.' should be added. You can always link in the privacy of your home. What GPL forbids is to distribute the `derived work'. I think probably that would fall under the classification of nitpicking personally. Very few would misunderstand the intention I think. pgpxjk3sXq36A.pgp Description: PGP signature
[ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
How about this one? I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks okay to me. Michael - Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] - If we do something like this, I'd rather suggest a text like: The GPL is often a source of missunderstanding and confusion. As we understand the license, redistribution and use of LyX in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted without any additional conditions. Even more, we would explicitely like to encourage people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK, Qt or Win32. If that is still ok for Debian, I could live with it. Michael? - End forwarded message - -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: [ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote: How about this one? I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks okay to me. looks good to me, with or without the first sentence. it's true, anyway. the GPL is often a source of misunderstanding and confusion. witness KDE, for example. if ettrich is willing to write this for LyX, then maybe he'll do the same for KDE? i hope so. Michael - Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] - If we do something like this, I'd rather suggest a text like: The GPL is often a source of missunderstanding and confusion. As we understand the license, redistribution and use of LyX in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted without any additional conditions. Even more, we would explicitely like to encourage people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK, Qt or Win32. If that is still ok for Debian, I could live with it. Michael? - End forwarded message - craig -- craig sanders
Antwort: Re: [ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
looks good to me, with or without the first sentence. For me too. it's true, anyway. the GPL is often a source of misunderstanding and confusion. witness KDE, for example. Yes, your right. But I think this sentence doens´t fit well into a license file. if ettrich is willing to write this for LyX, then maybe he'll do the same for KDE? i hope so. I´m in touch with him on that. But he doesn´t like to have his packages on Debian while his friends´ packages are not. He´s afraid of a Debian KDE package being not even close to the real thing. Michael Dr. Michael Meskes, Senior-Consultant Mummert+Partner Unternehmensberatung AG Tel.: +49211 826 4616
Re: [ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK, Qt or Win32. `... and distributing the resulting binary.' should be added. You can always link in the privacy of your home. What GPL forbids is to distribute the `derived work'.
Re: [ettrich@troll.no: Re: copyright problem]
Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks okay to me. Yeah. With that first sentence in, I think he'd argue that he doesn't need anyone's permission to apply it to third-party GPLed software: he's declaring what the GPL says. [If nothing else, we should fly such a statement past RMS's lawyer.] Without it, it looks like a simple granting of permission. -- Raul
