On 2/25/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Next, the presence of the binary blobs, if they're actually needed,
> preclued this work from being compatible with the GPL.
Sez who?
The last I heard Moglen "freed" blobs. The Prof in GNU Law declared
them to be fully resistant to the
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> The drivers do not load. They compile fine, but they do not load
> because some kernel developers think that they must throw stones
> into way of users (for whose sake?!).
>
> I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
> honestly th
#include
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:06:11PM]:
> On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
> > GPL context looks slightly absurd.
>
> Slightly?!
>
> -
> The authentication sequence, i
On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
> GPL context looks slightly absurd.
Slightly?!
-
The authentication sequence, it is true, may well block one form of
"access"—the "ability to . . . make use of"
#include
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:15:11AM]:
> >Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
> >You did not even copy it to the report.
> >
> >
>
> slmodem-2.9.9e-pre1a/COPYING
>
>
> /*
> *
> *Copyright (c) 2001, Smart Link Ltd.
> *All rights res
Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 12:46:42AM]:
Eduard Bloch wrote:
I though I have written that above.
Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an
interchangeable license, especially since you are the one respon
#include
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 12:46:42AM]:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >I though I have written that above.
> >
> >
>
> Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an
> interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible
> for the actual license ch
7 matches
Mail list logo
