> From: "Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am also not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be sued
> by anyone so I don't care too much for licenses. I believe that a qt
> port of abiword is within the 'spirit' of the gnu license.
This isn't an uncommon feeling among open source
Is this a gnome-plot to spread fud against kde?
> > From: "Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I am also not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be sued
> > by anyone so I don't care too much for licenses. I believe that a qt
> > port of abiword is within the 'spirit' of the gnu l
"Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is this a gnome-plot to spread fud against kde?
No. The QT license, either version, is not compatible with the GPL.
That is a fact. Facts are not FUD.
On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 10:08:29PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> "Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Is this a gnome-plot to spread fud against kde?
>
> No. The QT license, either version, is not compatible with the GPL.
> That is a fact. Facts are not FUD.
Plus...some of us Like K
I wasn't talking about the licenses, what I describe as a gnome plot
is all this unsolicited harassment by people trying to discourage
me. When I want counsel, I'll call a real solicitor. In the meantime,
keep your twit agendas to yourselves.
I am really in no need of people telling me what I
Montreal Fri May 28 00:31:13 1999
Under Linux, why are you using GTK+ instead of Qt? Politics. Most of
the truly nerdy open source people prefer GTK+, since Qt is not quite
free enough for the deepest dogma. We want the enthusiasm of those
super-geeks right from the beginning, so we are making t
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 10:47:35AM +1000, Andrew Wansink wrote:
> Is this a gnome-plot to spread fud against kde?
Nope. I pretty much wrote the QPL, and it's not GPL compatible. A
simple grant of permission from the AbiSource people will take care of
any problems.
Whether or not this is a flaw
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:41:51PM +1000, Andrew Wansink wrote:
> I wasn't talking about the licenses, what I describe as a gnome plot
> is all this unsolicited harassment by people trying to discourage
> me. When I want counsel, I'll call a real solicitor. In the meantime,
> keep your twit ag
Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
know-it-all bullshit opinions which I neither asked for nor wanted.
So, to all the debian-legal mo
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:37:37AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
>
> Under Linux, why are you using GTK+ instead of Qt? Politics. Most of
> the truly nerdy open source people prefer GTK+, since Qt is not quite
> free enough for the deepest dogma. We want the enthusiasm of those
> super-geeks righ
Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
know-it-all bullshit opinions which I neither asked for nor wanted.
So, to all the debian-legal m
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 04:31:52PM +1000, Andrew Wansink wrote:
> Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
> have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
> abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
> know-it-all bullshit opinio
On May 28, Andrew Wansink wrote:
> Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
> have had it all along actually.
[Unjustified [EMAIL PROTECTED] removed]
If you had the permission all along, why on earth are we having this
conversation?
Having said that, to include a Qt/KDE
For Christ's sake, will you stop taking things so personally. Just
for that I will make this personal. You are one of the worst kind of
mailing list readers. You a) come to the party late b) think you
have to reply to every message c) think you are involved in the
conversation when your not.
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 01:41:04AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If you had the permission all along, why on earth are we having this
> conversation?
Because some people like to argue? *sigh*
> Having said that, to include a Qt/KDE-enhanced/hacked Abiword in
> Debian, the copyright file must i
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 04:53:27PM +1000, Andrew Wansink wrote:
> Please read the complete thread before posting. There is nothing
> worse than stale comments.
I did read the whole of the thread found on -legal, which is all I had to
go on.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian
I think it may be time to end this thread here. My apologies to all
involved. I'm not usually such a bastard, honest, I'm a nice guy
who didn't get enough sleep. My only problem was that I started
the project in the 'spirit' of free software and got rubbed the wrong
way when I was given opin
Montreal Fri May 28 08:23:17 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please don't be dissuaded by politicians or their harassment.
> > Apparently the authors think it's okay, so if you want to do it, just
> > go right ahead. You might want to establish a dialog with the
> > AbiSource fo
Montreal Fri May 28 08:50:34 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KDE was pulled for LEGAL reasons. They are close to being resolved, but
> to be quite honest, all the people pretending they are political and not
> legal are GETTING IN THE WAY of fixing the problem.
Btw, neither Calde
Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Btw, neither Caldera, RedHat, SuSE, Corel, Mandrake, Slackware,...
> seem to think there's much of a problem. Any idea why that would be?
> Are their lawyers any different from Debian lawyers?
None of these folks operate in the distributed fashion of d
"Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
know-it-all bullshit opinions which I nei
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On the gripping hand, if the owner of the copyright for abiword (which may
> not be a well-defined entity if significant contributions have been made
> by multiple people under GPL) chooses to link against restricted libs,
> that's fine and dandy, as permission to do so is gran
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a little weird to me. If the upstream author links against
> Qt or XForms and releases under the GPL, doesn't that nullify
> whatever GPL clause against that?
The GPL doesn't have a clause against that.
The GPL has clauses about distribution of
Hi,
attached is a copy of "IBM PUBLIC LICENSE", extracted from the just
released Data Explorer 4.0 source. I don't know if this is the same as
Jike's license, but I catched my eye that Freshmeat lists this thing as
"OpenSource". I have read this, and all I can say right now is "this is
c
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:30:58AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> > Please don't assume what people claim is political agenda is in fact
> > political. Qt is nicely free now, I'm quite proud of the license (I
> > should be, considering it's my license) Doesn't mean the GPL likes it.
>
> Well,
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:32:53AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > On the gripping hand, if the owner of the copyright for abiword (which may
> > not be a well-defined entity if significant contributions have been made
> > by multiple people under GPL) chooses to link a
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
attached is a copy of "IBM PUBLIC LICENSE", extracted from the just
released Data Explorer 4.0 source. I don't know if this is the same as
Jike's license, but I catched my eye that Freshmeat lists this thing as
"OpenSource". I
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:26:47AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> attached is a copy of "IBM PUBLIC LICENSE", extracted from the just
> released Data Explorer 4.0 source. I don't know if this is the same as
> Jike's license, but I catched my eye that Freshmeat lists this thing as
> "Ope
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, Debian might be happy because they have clarified that
> linking against XForms is okay. But, am I to conclude that
> Debian doesn't agree with their argument that while they were
> using the GPL without clarification they were still okay
> lice
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 01:41:04AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Having said that, to include a Qt/KDE-enhanced/hacked Abiword in
> Debian, the copyright file must include an explicit statement from
> *all* Abiword copyright holders that the Abiword code may be linked
> against Qt (or Qt2 or anyth
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> In your above example, the _hydrid_ would be created and
> distributed by the owner of the copyright, and it still couldn't
> go into Debian. Right?
That is the Debian policy. It is not one I agree with, but I was outvoted
and I see no point in further debating the po
John Hasler wrote:
> > Would adding the email from the copyright holder be enough of a
> > clarification?
>
> Perhaps. Can we see the email?
It's a bunch of separate emails, some even asking me to take up
complete maintainership of the first package (xwatch) and saying I
can edit the license t
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, Debian might be happy because they have clarified that
> > linking against XForms is okay. But, am I to conclude that
> > Debian doesn't agree with their argument that while they were
> > using the GPL without clar
Montreal Fri May 28 17:09:01 1999
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan writes:
> > Debian just lives by the CYA policy. :) I don't know about the others.
> > They probably follow the same thoughts as everyone else.
>
> Or the advice of their attorneys.
>
> Lawyer to Red Hat exec: "If we
As an aside, Im curious if we have any lawyers here on -legal?
What I really wanted to ask.. Is someone brave enough to write a
"position" statement that clearly shows Debian's position on linking GPL
programs with in compatible licensed libraries?
I should probably point to the relevent text
35 matches
Mail list logo
