ware. If this was the original author who did this, no problem, as
the MIT and BSD licenses don't care as long as you keep their terms.
But if you add BSD code to someone else's GPL code, you could be in
trouble since the BSD license adds an additional requirement to
distribute an addit
s that since
information is infinitely reproducible at zero cost it should be free,
then it naturally follows that any software, once free, is always free
regardless of any microsoftian schemes. The problem with the MS
Kerberos fiasco is not the closed source implementation, but the lack
of open specific
only? Their
cash cow would remain intact, but their software would be fully Open
Source, as well as Free Software.
--
David Johnson...
_
http://www.usermode.org
rious, how do they intend to find
out which people are not distributing code? How could they possibly
know? I think what they are attempting to do with Section 6c is to
eliminate "private" distributions. The Corel beta test comes to mind.
IMHO, it's a lot less irksome than those freeware licenses that say "for
personal use only."
David Johnson
c
linkage. The QPL does not impose its own license terms upon applications
that link to it (only that they be open source). Accepting a QPLd bugfix
to Qt does not suddenly make KDE a QPLd application. If Troll Tech
chooses to only accept bugfixes assignable to Troll Tech, it affects
nobody but Troll Tech.
David Johnson
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:48:20AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> > I have put this opinion forth (that Qt is distinct from the
> > application and not a module) in the past, but each and every time
> > I have met with immense disagreement and
ll
not let you subvert my copyright or licensing. Just as I have to follow
your rules when working on your applications, you have to follow my
rules with my stuff, and follow Trolls rules for Qt. I just don't see
what the problem is.
David Johnson
nd too see the obvious? Anybody please explain.
I have put this opinion forth (that Qt is distinct from the application
and not a module) in the past, but each and every time I have met with
immense disagreement and vile language, so that I have become "gun shy"
and have refrained from stati
copy
if they ask. The QPL is completely silent on personal uses, disallows
"private" distributions, and is hunky-dory with public distributions.
David Johnson
L instead of GPL. And once they are
included, non-GPL KDE apps can be included as well, such as a lot of
KOffice, Cervisia, etc. Why has this stuff been left out?
David Johnson
Terry Dawson wrote:
>
> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > I didn't check for every GPL application that uses Qt, only one example
> > is sufficient. The package licq 0.44-4, in stable, uses the Qt library,
> > along with being licensed under the GPL. It does not have a
etary. Certainly someone could take my BSD source, compile
it, and distribute it binary only. However, those binaries still have my
license on them and the recipients have the right to redistribute them
themselves. As an example, Solaris includes a lot of BSD utilities. I,
as a user of Solaris, have the right to take the BSD utilities and
redistribute them.
David Johnson
h legal pronouncements and banishment? Or was
someone sloppy by including licq? Is there a double standard? WTF?
David Johnson
onal clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of
view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in
contrib or main.
David Johnson
es.
The purpose of the GPL is not to avoid the middle ground. The reason
most BSD developers choose the BSD license is precisely because it isn't
restrictive. They have shared their code with everyone, neither asking
nor expecting anything in return. It is no insult to them if it is used
in GPL or proprietary code. What *IS* an insult to them is this constant
preaching about freedom by those advocating more restrictions.
David Johnson
havior.
> >
> > As long as we're all slamming on each other here, and calling each
> > other "moronic idiots", and "outrageous", and slurring on each other's
> > manners...
>
> Errh, just for clarification, I was not calling anyone a moronic idiot :-).
And I don't believe I was slamming RMS by praising his exemplary
manners.
David Johnson
16 matches
Mail list logo
