On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
>
> James A.
r of people talking past each other. One group
> want a logo with a relatively free license for uses such as web pages.
> This is perfectly reasonable.
Agreed.
> Another group of people are interested in a logo which is used for
> advertising products with the Debian name on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
is the name debian a registered trademark?
if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
- --p.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNqt2MUJhnFR90XSjAQHeFAf9EULUklt0QfjI2DAbrPK2
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the
> > DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
> >
> Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. A logo is not softwar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 John Hasler wrote:
> Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
>> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
>
> We don't.
Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
tom-dick-harry
solve the problem.
> In this case, the discussion seems to have been triggered by the
> expiration of the current logo license.
>
True. I decided to leave it this way to force the issue - and it looks
like it is working. If enough people complain loudly enough I or one of
the other webma
Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
I wrote:
> We don't.
Darren Benham writes:
> Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
> tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in any way-shape-for
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 06:20:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
> Or don't license it: just use it on Debian stuff and grant individual
> licenses on a case by case basis. I doubt that you will be swamped by all
> the requests.
>
I'm glad to see you volunteer to take
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> > Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you?
> The picture of Tux is licensed freely for any use as long as Larry
> Ewing is mentioned. Don&#x
James A. Treacy writes:
> Even with the existing license (and a valid expiry date) I have probably
> handled 20 requests for use of the logo in the last 6 months.
Doesn't seem like many considering that the present license encourages
requests. Do you really think that forty people a
Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> is the name debian a registered trademark?
I think so.
> if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
I agree. I think trademarking the logo will allow us to prevent misuse and
at the same time allow us to give it a DFSG-free copyright.
--
see shy jo
All:
Please pardon my non-developer comment, but one thing about the license has
bothered me for a while, and I've seen no else bring it up:
Do we really want to limit the maximum size of an entity that can display
the license?
Points 2, 3, & 4 of the license state, roug
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:37:57AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are
> constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together.
> Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too?
You mean like a penguin wearing a har
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 07:26:19AM -, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Avery Pennarun wrote:
> >What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear
> >missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :))
>
> Only if they distribute the control systems :>
You'v
Hi,,
I have a package (php-netcheckip) that was MIT licensed.
Debian suports this license ?
-
The MIT License
Copyright (c)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to d
> I've debianized ImageMagick and uploaded it to master, in section
> non-free for now. However I think I could move it to the 'graphics'
> section as:
> 1) The license states it's free (included as attachment)
> 2) It doesn't include the GIF compres
> yeah, cygwin32.dll is under the GPL. So? It's a DLL, like libc5 and
> libc6 are... [the *only* thing I'm aware of that actually uses the
> LGPL is libg++; it was as much of an experiment as anything, and I'm
> not aware of any not-otherwise-free software taking advantage of those
> terms...] J
ks with the software Raspbian and there is installed your
operating system Debian. My question is: Do I need a license for the software
to develop in a company?
With kind regards,
Tobias Harzen
On 08/30/2010 09:06 PM, D M German wrote:
>
> After my presentation at DebConf this year I was pointed to your efforts
> on the Patch Tagging Guidelines.
>
> One thing I believe would be useful is if the patch included a
> license. The simplest license would be "Same
On 30.08.2010 21:06, D M German wrote:
After my presentation at DebConf this year I was pointed to your efforts
on the Patch Tagging Guidelines.
One thing I believe would be useful is if the patch included a
license. The simplest license would be "Same as patched code" but it
will
Hello,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, D M German wrote:
> After my presentation at DebConf this year I was pointed to your efforts
> on the Patch Tagging Guidelines.
>
> One thing I believe would be useful is if the patch included a
> license. The simplest license would be "Same as
Christian Kastner writes:
> On 08/30/2010 09:06 PM, D M German wrote:
>>
>> After my presentation at DebConf this year I was pointed to your efforts
>> on the Patch Tagging Guidelines.
>>
>> One thing I believe would be useful is if the patch included a
>&
Hi,
Could you elaborate what part of license that someone might have concern?
It looks like X11 license for me at the first glance.
Yao Wei
(This email is sent from a phone; sorry for HTML email if it happens.)
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 04:49, Paul Hardy wrote:
>
> Dear Debian,
>
Never mind. I was wrongfully read as the license has the problem.
(It is that, IVD files had no license attached to it, someone might think it is
"All rights reserved" by copyright law in most jurisdictions. Please correct me
if I am wrong again.)
Yao Wei
(This email is sent fr
Yao Wei,
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:18 PM "Yao Wei (魏銘廷)" wrote:
>
> Never mind. I was wrongfully read as the license has the problem.
>
> (It is that, IVD files had no license attached to it, someone might think it
> is "All rights reserved" by copyrigh
Paul Hardy writes ("Unicode License Additional Coverage"):
> Unicode, Inc. has informed me that they just added the directory
> http://www.unicode.org/ivd/data/ to the list of directories explicitly
> mentioned as covered by their license; see
> http://www.unicode.org/
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:12 AM Seth McClain wrote:
> xTuple recently took most of their git repos off of github and is
> changing the license to much of the code moving forward.
>
> https://xtuple.com/blog/ned/free-software
>
> Debian currently offers builds of Po
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 11:34, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/07/2019 14:42, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > really used any of that software. Daniel was the other member, but I
> > can’t imagine him going back to package maintenance any time soon.
> Why would you write something offensive like that
Hi, forks.
I appreciate your previous answer to my question about the open-source
licenses.
May I ask another question?
1. Is it no matter who releases his Linux distribution under his license
for commercially?
the distribution is made of modified and unmodified packages from
upstream.
2
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:09:22PM +0800, 刘涛 wrote:
> Hello, I have the following questions to consult and look forward to your
> authoritative answers.
>
> 1. Must various software packages in the Debian community contain a
> license file "license.txt"? Without this
Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public
discussion here
might be beneficial for me :)
Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standards, and
now since
I would like to put Virtualbox back in main, I'm trying to see if some
Hi
People have complained that adding license text in debian/copyright file is
tedious.
To avoid this problem, libconfig-model-dpkg-perl 2.102 now ships a new cme
script to copy a license text in debian/copyright. This script is run with
"cme run" command [1]
For instance:
$ echo
Le Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:48:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> Question on this (because the current draft does not look particularly
> clear on that topic, at least to my own reading): is it true that
> arbitrary keywords can be used in License fields to reference lice
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicholas Bamber
* Package name: license-reconcile
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Nicholas Bamber
* URL : https://github.com/periapt/license-reconcile
* License : Perl
Programming Lang: Perl
Description
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Debian Perl Group
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: libstring-license-perl
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Contact: Jonas Smedegaard
* URL
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Yadd
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-license-webpack-plugin
Version : 4.0.2
Upstream Contact: https://github.com/xz64/license-webpack-plugin/issues
* URL : https://github.com/xz64/license-webpack
Hi Dominique,
I wanted to try this cool feature but failed may be I did something wrong:
$ gbp clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/beads.git
$ cd beads
beads(master) $ cme run paste-license --arg license=CeCILL --arg COPYING
Log4perl: Seems like no initialization happened. Forgot
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:20:58 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> $ gbp clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/beads.git
> $ cd beads
> beads(master) $ cme run paste-license --arg license=CeCILL --arg COPYING
% cme run paste-license --arg license=CeCILL --arg file=COPYING
seem
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 06:40:37PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:20:58 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > $ gbp clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/beads.git
> > $ cd beads
> > beads(master) $ cme run paste-license --arg lice
On Sunday, 22 October 2017 08:55:44 CEST Andreas Tille wrote:
> $ cme run paste-license --arg license=CeCILL --arg file=COPYING >
> copyright.patch Log4perl: Seems like no initialization happened. Forgot to
> call init()?
That's a bug in cme that will be fixed soon.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:14:04AM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 October 2017 08:55:44 CEST Andreas Tille wrote:
> > $ cme run paste-license --arg license=CeCILL --arg file=COPYING >
> > copyright.patch Log4perl: Seems like no initialization happened. Forgo
o not understand. I the string CeCILL (with capital I) is in the
> main license section. Could you please be more verbose how d/copyright
> needs to look like to make cme add the license text?
Uh ? From a fresh git clone of beads, cat debian/copyright shows:
+
Format: https://www.de
Hi Dominique,
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 07:39:10PM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I do not understand. I the string CeCILL (with capital I) is in the
> > main license section. Could you please be more verbose how d/copyright
> > needs to look like to make
t's use the same terminology as debian/copyright. I meant the section
made of one or more "Stand-alone License paragraph" [1] . This one was
missing from the file, the CeCILL license was not defined, hence the file was
considered as invalid by cme.
> > May be I should just d
Hi all,
I work on a package (gdcm) that contains files from a variety of
sources and as a result the d/copyright file is quite large [1].
Specifically, there are various source files that are all licensed with
a BSD-3-clause license which are worded slightly differently. i.e. in
some cases the
On May 31, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 is
> DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the repositories?
The ftpmasters do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:47:37 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game
[...]
> All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0.
Good.
> All the game content,
> sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0
> Attri
hat the Gaim-Encryption plugin for Gaim, which can be found at
http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/, makes use of the OpenSSL
library, and loads it into the same process space as Gaim.
Due to OpenSSL's four-clause BSD license (ie with the advertising clause),
it is therefore in violatio
On 10431 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
> reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
NEW, not incoming.
> I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
> lic
licensed with PHP License:
php-auth - 3.0
php-date - 3.0
php-db - 3.0
php-file - 3.0
php-html-template-it - 2.0
php-http - 3.0
php-imlib - 2.0
php-mail - 2.0
php-net-checkip - 2.0
php-net-smtp - 2.0
php-net-socket - 2.0
php-services-weather - 2.0
php-xml-parser - 3.0
Are you going to report the
[Joerg Jaspert]
> Another pointer:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
Are you sure you get this right. When I read the license, it look
like a bad choosen license for PEAR (because of all the references to
PHP), but not like a non-free license. The fact that t
Petter Reinholdtsen schrieb am Dienstag, den 04. Oktober 2005:
> [Joerg Jaspert]
> > Another pointer:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
>
+snip+
> So perhaps the license is free according to DFSG?
Of course its free. But it only fits to php it
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:30:49PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>
> As Jörg stated in his reject mail: "The reason for this decision is the
> license which does not really fit the package.". Not: this license is
> non-free!
>
Yep, it's like a license which woul
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> It is cool that you filled the bug report for my package (php4-pear-log) but
> I've found several more packages which are licensed with PHP License:
> php-auth - 3.0
> php-date - 3.0
> php-db - 3.0
> php-file - 3.0
>
> > php-auth - 3.0
> > php-date - 3.0
> > php-db - 3.0
> > php-file - 3.0
> > php-html-template-it - 2.0
> > php-http - 3.0
> > php-imlib - 2.0
> > php-mail - 2.0
> > php-net-checkip - 2.0
> > php-net-smtp - 2.0
> > php-net-socket - 2.0
> > php-services-weather - 2.0
> > php-xml-parser - 3.0
> > Ar
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
>> But now where you compiled the list I dont want to take the glory away
>> From you, so feel free to do it yourself. :)
> I could just clone the original bugreport. What do you think?
Whatever you find more attractive. :)
--
bye Joerg
Linus: "Wenn
Hello,
I have sent an email to Richard Stallman asking a similar question, no response.
So! I was wondering what the community at large, and hopefully the main Debian
developers, think about InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"? You
can find it here: http:/
Another person has requested use of the Debian logo. As most people
are pretty happy with the license I added a clause saying the logo
is usable under the current license (http://www.debian.org/logos/logo.html.
Update should reach there soon) until 31 January 1998 and told him he could
use it
James A.Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Another person has requested use of the Debian logo. As most people
> are pretty happy with the license I added a clause saying the logo is
> usable under the current license
> (http://www.debian.org/logos/logo.html. Update should reach ther
I intend to package v2html, the verilog to HTML converter. I have a
question about the license though: Would the following be OK to allow it
in main?
--
Steve PhillipsPhone: (715) 830-1200 x109
Silicon Logic Engineering, LLPFAX: (715) 830-1887
131
also sprach José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2006.02.06.1746 +0100]:
> I have a package (php-netcheckip) that was MIT licensed.
> Debian suports this license ?
Yes. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I r
Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Em Sáb, 2006-02-11 às 13:46 -0500, Nathanael Nerode escreveu:
> I have one single question... Does copyright law even applies to legal
> agreements and license terms? I'm pretty sure noone can be sued for
> using the terms someon
Hello,
I certainly mistakenly put Apache in non-free when I took over the package.
I'd like to put it back into net, but can you tell me if its license, which
follows, allows that? (I think it can).
Thanks,
1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)
(2) the discussion wasn't writing *comercial* software with
anything, but writing *free* software with a pseudo-free package like
Qt... so how did we get here? There's *ce
rictions on Qt, really.
>
> Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
> in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)
I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
--Galen
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe"
> I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
ry limiting of commercial software running on linux.
>From the GPL section 2:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then thi
> Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
> in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)
libc5 appears to be under the GPL, while libc6 appears to be under
the LGPL. Weird. Does that mean that anything that is linked
against libc5 has to be
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright f
> Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Cheers,
- Jim
pgp6b75kk1gUm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
>
> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
I'm not sure from a copyright standpoint how that works. A copyright
means that you are protected from me using your copyri
> I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
> want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
> link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
> that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Actually, it is different. GPL-ed softwar
ibc 1.0
> (libc5) and 2.0 (libc6) are both LGPL--at least the library parts.
> Other programs grouped with the libc package are probably GPL.
Ack! I must be blind, I looked right at this file right before posting
too, from stdio.h:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
m
e requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as
> Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
> portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
*not* including portions of libc5 in your binary. A replacement libc5
that met the "i
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> For some more perspective on the "interface" argument, go back and see
> some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU "libmp" (multiple
> precision integer math library.) See also the discussion of just a
> week or three ago about a company shipping a co
never
intended to be used for libraries and other dynamically-linked code where the
legal implications are much more far-reaching. That's why the LGPL came
into existence - the GPL was just too restrictive.
The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
restrictive as
[ I've not been following this thread too closely,
so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
> The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
> restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
> using it as Cygnus is d
On Jun 1, Jim Pick wrote
> Actually, I had a very similar polite argument with RMS via private e-mail
> (about linking Java libs with mixed GPL/LGPL/proprietary licenses). He
> was pretty solid on the fact that run-time linking is the same as
> "compiled-in" linking.
Yep, once the run-time linkin
rk into another, where these parts are
small with respect to both the first and the second work, definitely DO
NOT make the second one a derived work, whatever any license may claim.
Think about where this comes from. If I write a book, and include Hamlet's
famous question somewhere, my
s the resulting binary was derived from
libmp. In this particular case, the program was thus subjected to both
the GPL -and- the license on RSAREF, which are incompatable licenses.
The FSF objected to the distribution of the modified package -at all-,
since it would be impossible to fulfill the r
ith a non-GPL license (pretty much BSD-like).
--
Thomas Koenig, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble
> However, the unique interface issue does exist with regard to gzip,
> since that is purely a GPLed product. I think a libgzip or a gzip.dll
> would run into the same issues as the libdb did.
Not to distract from the original point (thank you for the clearer
explanation of the libmp issue!) no
> [ I've not been following this thread too closely,
> so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
>
> > The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
> > restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
>
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I really must admit I find the GPL very cryptic, it's hard to say exactly
> what it means if you look at very small detail. I do think that it makes
> sense however that you should be able to put RCS in a dll and link to the
> dll.
That depends, if you put it in a .dll, a
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> The cygwin.dll case in an example where the GPL is being used to restrict the
> rights of other people using the code so that they can't do something taboo
> such as charge money, while at the same time, reserving the right for the
> authors to do the exact same thing.
sues. Can someone point out a better forum?
I'm not saying that they're being immoral. I don't think they have properly
addressed the issues though. Maybe that means they would be open to releasing
the cygwin.dll under the LGPL in addition to the GPL and their proprietary
license.
On Jun 2, Raul Miller wrote
>
> [Note: what RMS is trying to argue against is the stunt
> Steve Jobs & Co. pulled with Objective C.]
Could you describe what the said 'stunt' was? I'm curious...
Christian
pgpyv2Q82qumI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
> > portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
>
> Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
> *not* including portions of libc5 in yo
Hi Jim,
> Imagine if Microsoft demanded that everybody had to use a certain
> license in order to run on top of their operating system.
Well, they do actually.
Microsoft charges for the licences to use it's ``operating systems''.
If the Freeware community produces
Well, maybe the GPL is broken when it comes to situations like this. What
I don't understand is, if something doesn't contain any GPL'd code, how
can the GPL force me to put my product under it. So it has the interface
calls to library/.dll, copyrights don't cover how something works,
patents d
Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> libdb would be an issue if you used the db interfaces; if you used the
> dbm_* interfaces, you'd presumably be ok...
But the original libdb was covered by the BSD copyright; the libc6
copyright states: "All code incorporated from 4.4 BSD is under
e. [Even if
> it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll could be considered
> a problem.]
That's true. I was just thinking about all the packages that use it.
It's worth doing, even if Cygnus doesn't want to LGPL their license.
At least we could port the 1
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
> Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
> to cygwin32.
Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
>
> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
> Can too. Read the law.
>
> The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what they
> put in it.
Although they _can_ restrict you f
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
> >
> > Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
> Can too. Read the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 07.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> >> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
> >
> > Can too. Read the law.
> >
> > The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2013-07-10 10:39, tobias.har...@dlr.de wrote:
> The Raspberry PI works with the software Raspbian and there is
> installed your operating system Debian. My question is: Do I need a
> license for the software to develop in a company?
201 - 300 of 944 matches
Mail list logo
