I should have read all the list before replying...
Paul Serice wrote:
> Paul Serice wrote:
> >
> > You don't give me much time to reply.
>
> I take that back. It just got lost in incoming.
It was more than a day, during which you posted to -devel.
Paul Serice wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> > licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> > nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
>
> You don't
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:49:54PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> Not really. According to RMS, it is strictly only compatible with
> software whose license can be changed to the GPL. Only one license
> allows itself to transformed into the GPL, and that is the LGPL.
You're mixing unrelated concept
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:10:46PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> Your wording is off a bit.
That's a nit. [That wording was relevant only assuming a particular goal,
and that goal was spelled out at the begining of the paragraph.]
The issue is: what is the goal for "Open Source" Motif?
--
Raul
Paul Serice wrote:
>
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> > licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> > nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
>
> You don't give me much time to reply.
I take that back. It just got
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
You don't give me much time to reply.
Paul Serice
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> > except itself dual licensing with GPL leads unfortunately to the
> > fragmentation of development.
>
> That's not true;
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> > a logical nexus here.
>
> Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
> document.
>
> Why?
Well, I guess it'
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> think the GPL winds up being the best license: The one that will suffer
> the fewest chances of being ripped off by someone who wants to turn it
> into something non-free (proprietar
On 2000-05-16 at 20:35 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:25:00PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> [stuff about LaMacchia]
>
> Mike: the subject line you used doesn't seem to be related to the contents
> of your post. Care to explain?
I didn't write the subject line; I hit reply.
On 16-May-00, 19:25 (CDT), Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harvey comments:
>
>Subsequent to and as a result of the outcome of the LaMacchia case,
>Congress amended the criminal copyright statute so that it currently
>punishes copyright infringement, whether or not the infring
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:25:00PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
[stuff about LaMacchia]
Mike: the subject line you used doesn't seem to be related to the contents
of your post. Care to explain?
--
Raul
The US law was changed after the Lamacchia case. See, for example:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/LaMacchia/
(Note that Brian LaMacchia, who runs the PGP keyserver at pgp.ai.mit.edu,
and David LaMacchia, who was the defendant here, are brothers.)
David LaMacchia's personal page is:
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> Their FAQ says that the kernel is what the mean, and that both BSD and
> Linux qualify without a problem.
They just added that question, I think based on my query representing the
view on this mailing list. Squeaky wheels, etc.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis
Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> except itself dual licensing with GPL leads unfortunately to the
> fragmentation of development.
That's not true; the GPL is compatible with many other licenses.
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original Motif
> > license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is: would this
> > generate enough revenue to be wort
Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They need to add a definition of "operating system" so that we can tell
> how much of a system needs to be covered by an "open source" license before
> they will allow us to use their software with it.
Their FAQ says that the kernel is what the mean, a
On 16-May-00, 01:18 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DDD is now apparently under the aegis of GNU. The quote I give comes
> straight from the GNU's mouth in a short section devoted to explaining
> the power they want the GPL to confer.
I recently defended Mr. Serice from a trollin
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original
> > Motif license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is:
> > would this generate enough revenue to be worth bothering with?
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin K
I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
Joey Hess wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > > This is not some random quo
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original Motif
> license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is: would this
> generate enough revenue to be worth bothering with?
Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incom
Raul Miller wrote:
> > But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> > think the GPL winds up being the best license:
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 12:43:41PM +0100, Dj wrote:
> Or more accurately, if you are trying to induce people to produce free
> software by licensing your
Raul Miller wrote:
> But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> think the GPL winds up being the best license:
Or more accurately, if you are trying to induce people to produce free
software by licensing your software...
> Then again, if your goal is to produce so
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:33:58AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> Well, according to my experience people (of all countries/cultures) I
> have been talking to seem to understand the QPL much better than the
> GPL. BSD seems to be the simpliest.
I don't know about the QPL being easier to understand
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I would seriously ask TOG to rewrite two or three of the clauses in the
> QPL as a matter of enforcability for one and awful ambiguities for
> another.
>
> The QPL ended up not what I expected at all. There are a couple of
> clauses in that license tha
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:18:38PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> This got me to thinking. Perhaps the QPL (QTv2+) is the perfect license
> for what the Open Group needs...
Bite your tongue. The QPL is a perfect license for nothing except an
example of how NOT to write a free software license.
--
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> > a logical nexus here.
>
> Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
> document.
>
> Why?
Because, as near as
Paul Serice wrote:
> DDD is now apparently under the aegis of GNU.
So is a whole slew of software[1]. That doesn't mean RMS is personally
responsible for what it may say in some manual somewhere, nor does it
mean what it says in some manual somewhere has any bearing on the
interpretation of the GP
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> a logical nexus here.
Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
document.
Why?
--
Raul
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Paul Serice wrote:
> > What is legally binding is neither the text I quoted nor the text to
> > which you refer. Rather, it is the interpretation of the text to which
> > you refer (and possibly other documents) by a judge of competent
> > jurisdiction (or a similar decision
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:37:29PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> I think you step on to very dangerous ground when you call
> non-opensource development a "field of endeavour". Dangerous ground
> which might give way under the GPL, and prevent other things which we
> would like to allow.
I agree wi
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:18:38PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> > >The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
> > >and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
> > >which are themselves Open Source programs
> >
> > Which puts it in the s
On Mon, 15 May 2000, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> >The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
> >and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
> >which are themselves Open Source programs
>
> Which puts it in the same category as Qt v1: n
33 matches
Mail list logo
