From: Gergely Madarasz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I understand this. The issue is that Jason can't take some GPL code and
> incorporate it into libapt-pkg. It is another case if some other author
> accepts this licence.
Well, Jason (or anyone else) could always fork off a GPL-only thread of
libapt-pkg.
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Troll's refusal to license Qt under the GPL and then have a different
> license for those who want to hide their source code is apparently nothing
> more than an act of spite against the free software community (perhaps
> compounded by ignorance of licen
Culus and I hammered this out over IRC. He seems to like it okay and it
satisfies my paranoia, so it's time for other people to beat on it.
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | The noble soul has reverence for itself.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Fried
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
> modifiaction to be in main.
Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
Bruce
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> He did bring up an interesting point: would translating something from
> English to Dutch also fall under encryption? It seems to fit all the
> criteria for encryption..
No. Here's why:
Codes and cyphers are not the same thing, although the term "code"
QPL version 1.0 and not 2.0?
Bruce
Or am I just confused and QPL 1.0 is the license applied to Qt 2.0 ?
Bruce
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:21:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Or am I just confused and QPL 1.0 is the license applied to Qt 2.0 ?
You were confused.
QPL 1.0 applies to Qt "Free Edition" version 2.0.
--
G. Branden Robinson |Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:04:08PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
> > modifiaction to be in main.
> Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
I have vague recollections of
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 04:06:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:04:08PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > > Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
> > > modifiaction to be in
Hello
I have written a little GPL program that extracts icons (.ICO)
from Win16/Win32 .DLL and .EXE files. This program requires
some Wine includes, or should I say Win16/Win32 includes
to compile.
So I included the Wine includes in a separate dir, and stated
that these are released under the Win
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 11:21:22PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Works using apt may link against the GUI library "libqt", copyright by
> Troll Tech AS, Norway, provided that:
>
> 1. The version of "libqt" is under the terms of the "Q Public License",
...
> 2. The source code of the version of
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:04:08 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
> > modifiaction to be in main.
>
> Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
Yes. See e.g. perlfaq(1p).
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:27:41PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> I was wondering about the GPL and its restrictions. Not the GPL programs, but
> the GPL license text itself.
Licenses cannot be themselves free and still mean anything. They're legal
documents and as such need to be unchangin
According to Chris Lawrence:
> > (Having said that, I'm not sure that it's legit to make exceptions
> > to the GPL, especially if the author used anyone else's code in the
> > module...)
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 05:13:10PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> For his own code, of course he can -- witnes
15 matches
Mail list logo
