[snip]
Guys, would you *please* move this discussion to -legal, which is a far
more appropriate place for it?
--
G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:57:36PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
> >In fact, I'm considering adding a
> >list of files in the library and their associated licenses to the
> >README.Debian in the package once it hits Sid (I've uploaded it already). I
> >grew aware of probl
Marek Habersack wrote:
In fact, I'm considering adding a
list of files in the library and their associated licenses to the
README.Debian in the package once it hits Sid (I've uploaded it already). I
grew aware of problems with licensing while working on Caudium. We, as the
Caudium Group, don't own
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:11:53PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
[snip]
> I'm interested in the notion of license metadata for file packages (in
> the general sense)-- what the semantics would be, whether or how it
> could be useful, etc. As someone pointed out, there is no such thing
> for D
Branden,
I don't disagree with anything you've stated regarding my sloppy
arguments. However, as you are implying on a public forum that I don't
grasp the subject matter of licenses, I'm going to defend myself a little.
I wrote, unfortunately, "If the library as a whole must be under GPL
licen
[Follows set to debian-legal.]
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
> If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it
> significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public
> domain? The purpose of the License field is to tell the user what
Peter Palfrader wrote:
Last time I checked we didn't have License fields, so this discussion is
pointless.
Indeed, I was imagining some other world. In any case, I'd assume that
the license field of the ITP is going to reflect the contents of the
package copyright file.
--
http:// if ile.o g/
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003, John Belmonte wrote:
> However in your package, assuming it is compiling GPL'd modules and
> including them in the library, is producing an object file governed by
> the terms of the GPL. Therefore your license field should read only "GPL".
Last time I checked we didn't ha
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:21:59PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
> >Quoting from the nettle manual:
> >
> > Nettle is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) (see the
> > file COPYING for details). However, most of the individual files are dual
> > licensed
Marek Habersack wrote:
Quoting from the nettle manual:
Nettle is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) (see the
file COPYING for details). However, most of the individual files are dual
licensed under less restrictive licenses like the GNU Lesser General Public
License (LGPL),
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:50:52PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
> Chad Walstrom wrote:
> >>My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
> >>under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
> >>library as a whole must be considered to be under the G
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
> >>My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
> >>under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
> >>library as a whole must be considered to be under the
Chad Walstrom wrote:
My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, correct?
Not necessarily. If work is done on the Public Domain portion of co
Marek Habersack wrote:
My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, correct?
Yes, that's the case. I just wanted to highlight the fact that par
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:53:38AM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
> >* License : GPL, LGPL, Public Domain
>
> What does this mean exactly?
>
> My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
> under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If th
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:53:38AM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
> >* License : GPL, LGPL, Public Domain
>
> What does this mean exactly?
It's a mix of licenses of the source files composing the library.
> My guess is that it means some parts of the library are
Marek Habersack wrote:
* License : GPL, LGPL, Public Domain
What does this mean exactly?
My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, c
17 matches
Mail list logo
