* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060405 00:57]:
Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true
randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL
for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license
for that, but well...
On 10615 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:
Hrm. I *can* try that. I dont know if it helps, as its similar hard to
discuss this via a phone.
It would be best if it were someone he wasn't already upset with !
I hope he isnt that upset with me. And also - shouldnt it be one of
those who he sees as
On 10615 March 1977, Andreas Barth wrote:
Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true
randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL
for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license
for that, but well...
Definitly you
On 3 Apr 2006, Ian Jackson said:
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main):
Well, yes. Consider the case that I write up a compiler for a
new language in C++ or ruby. Can I put this compiler in main? Even
if there is no public repository of code in this new language?
On 4/4/06, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true
randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL
for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license
for that, but well...
I
On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by
distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out
software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free
input/output is still desirable, since it is a
On 5 Apr 2006, Raul Miller stated:
On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by distributing and
build software on non-free systems, putting out software that may
initially be more heavily used with non-free input/output is still
7 matches
Mail list logo
