Top 10 meds bought online
http://dgjx.2znvolkdzukao3k.robinggimaa.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict
between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've
asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe
that the distinction you've asserted is correct.
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict
between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've
asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe
that the distinction you've asserted is
For professional documents use professional software...
http://lztm.296hn1kvhu29hlk.orangeiagce.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bjorklund Aloysia
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Hi all!
I'm on the way of making a debian package for Waste, and I would have the
folowing two questions about your software:
Does the licence really reflect GPL?
This arise because of this:
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I already corrected you on that one. I very much doubt that
you've even read the decision, and you certainly have made no attempt
to substantiate your claim about the reasoning it contains. I don't
know why I even bother at this
Hello,
(Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
>From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time,
NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL
(NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on
NullSoft's website is because of
This topic has been beat to death and is the cause for most of the
devs bailing throughout the life of the project (legal concerns).
There are a couple old articles on /. that should cover all the
arguments (in the comments)...but I'm sure you'll find them all over.
here's one:
Hello,
Yes, you are correct. I am assuming that.
As far as I can tell, even if AOL didn't approve it, NullSoft, being
the owners of the code, are allowed and able to release the code
under whatever license they want to release it under. (Whether
they'll get in trouble or not from AOL, for doing
[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]
It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried
to take things back. But the GPL doesn't allow for that.
It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for
a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption
Raul Miller wrote:
Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based
on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl?
In source code form, yes, we do under sections 1 and 2 of the GPL. The
the source code for all modules it contains is part of section 3,
which
On 5/18/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based
on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl?
uses is utterly irrelevant anyway, and contains isn't the case
when we're talking
As usual, I don't know what your point is.
If I read you right, you're claiming that I mis-read my own question --
that I really wasn't asking for clarifcation on why you asserted that
the GPL is not a license.
If I read you right, you think that my citation of this case involving
colorization
On 5/18/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In source code form, yes, we do under sections 1 and 2 of the GPL. The
the source code for all modules it contains is part of section 3,
which doesn't matter when we're distributing source.
If distribute meant distribute in the form of
Peter Samuelson wrote:
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the basis of her having received no
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not the
Raul Miller wrote:
If distribute meant distribute in the form of debian packages as
defined by the semantics of dpkg as opposed to distribute whatever
the mechanism, we'd be golden.
As long as we don't distribute GPL'd code linked with OpenSSL in object
code or executable form, but only as
On 5/18/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As usual, I don't know what your point is.
If I read you right, you're claiming that I mis-read my own question --
that I really wasn't asking for clarifcation on why you asserted that
the GPL is not a license.
OK, let's clarify that. There
On 5/18/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
If distribute meant distribute in the form of debian packages as
defined by the semantics of dpkg as opposed to distribute whatever
the mechanism, we'd be golden.
As long as we don't distribute GPL'd code linked
On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't*
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, let's clarify that. There is a particular legal use of the word
license, as in the phrase scope of the license, which refers
specifically to an individual provision in a contract that says what
rights the copyright holder (or, in
23 matches
Mail list logo
