Hello !
APSL is not considered free by the Free Software Fundation but I haven't
found in the archives of this list anything about the policy of Debian
for this license. Is it considered free enough for Debian ?
I am not on the list, please cc me the answers.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
your GPL binary is not shipped together
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
your GPL binary is
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
not part of the library itself -- i.e., not much. It certainly doesn't
require that they
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
not part of the library
OGGETTO:
Per lui, per lei, per gay
Stiamo informando il popolo di internet italiano,
che il nostro staff composto da giovani donne e
giovani uomini dai 18 anni in su, hanno aperto
un nuovissimo sito, esclusivamente in lingua italiana, e
frequentato da persone italiane.
Il nostro sito รจ il
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:03:47PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
ECC itself is not patent encumbered, but the most popular curves are.
These curves (mathematical equations, essentially) are patented by
Certicom, not Sun. It's like patenting a (p, q) pair for DSA or Elgamal,
except that these
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:28:20PM +0200, Manuel Sabban wrote:
APSL is not considered free by the Free Software Fundation but I haven't
found in the archives of this list anything about the policy of Debian
for this license. Is it considered free enough for Debian ?
I am not on the list,
Jeff Licquia wrote:
To clarify Steve's otherwise excellent reply: recent gnutls ships with
an OpenSSL compatibility library. The libraries are LGPL, so there
should be no problem with compatibility.
I haven't tried it yet, but I intend to with CUPS. I'd recommend you
give it a try.
It's
There have been a few revisions of the APSL. Please provide us with a
pointer to the one you're talking about.
I am talking about the latest revision (1.2) available here :
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/
Thanks.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On 12 Oct 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Congratulations on making the front page of Slashdot.
Wow. :)
Qt is currently dual-licensed; you can choose the terms of the QPL or
the GPL. If you choose the terms of the GPL, then there is obviously no
contradiction with the terms of the GPL. If
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:38:10AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants
13 matches
Mail list logo
