[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bridgett) wrote on 23.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> > disagree.
> >
> >
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) wrote on 23.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> > disagree.
>
> This is weird, especially
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 07:00:24PM +0100, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> > disagree.
> > Permission is granted to anyone to use
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> disagree.
>
>
> Copyright (c) 1997-1998 by Armin Biere.
>
> Author: Armin Biere.
>
> Permission is granted to anyone t
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 06:20:21PM +0200, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> >> disagree.
> &g
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
>> disagree.
>
>This is weird, especially because of point 3. He means the right thing, but
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> disagree.
This is weird, especially because of point 3. He means the right thing, but
he doesn't mention modification, redistribution of
As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
disagree.
Copyright (c) 1997-1998 by Armin Biere.
Author: Armin Biere.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
subject to the following
knowledgement.
As stated by Will Lowe, I think a registration process could handle
this (i.e. re-register annually under the current license terms).
>
> Draft text below.
>
> There are a number of unresolved questions:
> * Do we want a separate logo and licence for `powered by Debian'?
m mail us ?
>
If they supply an "Official" CD set with the machine they should be able
to use both the "Official" title and the Debian name as long as they are
associated with "The Debian Logo".
I guess, over all, this means I favor a single logo.
> Ian.
>
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Then if we want to change the licence we publish version 2 instead,
> leaving version 1 available but stating that it is no longer
> available. Users of the logo have to go and check each year that the
These last two sentences are a little wacky. You mean
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
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
[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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, 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.
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
> [ 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,
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
[ 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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
[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
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
> 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
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
> 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] .
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"
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
> 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
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,
> 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
Hi Folks.
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 compression cod
The DRAFT Lynx license would let us distribute with no problem. We just
have to urge them to move it from draft to actual status.
Bruce
--
Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
Peter and Andrew,
Please forgive me for not responding earlier regarding the Aladdin Ghostscript
license.
The only snag I see here is that Debian will be placed on a CD-ROM and sold
for profit by various publishers (I'm one, FSF is one, there are probably a
dozen others). It's not c
> Sale for profit of a CD-ROM including a program governed by the Aladdin
> Free license is allowed as long as everything on the CD-ROM may be copied
> and redistributed without further fee for (at least) non-commercial
> purposes.
OK - that clarifies it for me. I don't see
Sale for profit of a CD-ROM including a program governed by the Aladdin
Free license is allowed as long as everything on the CD-ROM may be copied
and redistributed without further fee for (at least) non-commercial
purposes. I.e., as long as everything (both software and documents) on the
CD-ROM
901 - 957 of 957 matches
Mail list logo
