Riku Voipio writes:
> Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
Because it isn't priority essential.
> to quote GPL:
> "the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:09:19AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> Aren't commercial companies distributing GNU tools such as EGCS with
> their commercial OSes (proprietary libc)?
They shouldn't be. Doesn't mean they aren't, but they shouldn't be.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Montreal Sat May 29 10:03:30 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is hotly debated, some people say that nothing X-based should be
> considered "part of the operating system", others say that Qt, gtk, and X
> are all part of Linux, and others still say that Qt would have to be at
>
Montreal Sat May 29 09:55:38 1999
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
>
> It might, but that will make no difference. That clause would let other
> people distribute GPL'd programs linked with Qt. It wouldn't help
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:00:22PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> > Um.. no... it's more like:
>
> > developers to debian-legal: "Is the GPL compatible with QT? I.e., is
> > it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?"
>
> > Debian-leg
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause? Afterall, we know
> several GPL:d apps that link them on motif, for example ddd.
It can, however
> to quote GPL:
>
> "the source code distributed need not include
> anything that
(This is sent to both debian-legal and debian-devel, because the mail
I'm replying to was, and I'm seeing this mistake made far too often
to leave it uncorrected.)
Riku Voipio wrote:
> Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
It might, but that will make no difference. That clause would
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:00:22PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Um.. no... it's more like:
> developers to debian-legal: "Is the GPL compatible with QT? I.e., is
> it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?"
> Debian-legal to developers: "Not that we can see. QT and GPL are
> incompatible".
> I
Montreal Fri May 28 17:09:01 1999
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan writes:
> > Debian just lives by the CYA policy. :) I don't know about the others.
> > They probably follow the same thoughts as everyone else.
>
> Or the advice of their attorneys.
>
> Lawyer to Red Hat exec: "If we
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:30:58AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> > Please don't assume what people claim is political agenda is in fact
> > political. Qt is nicely free now, I'm quite proud of the license (I
> > should be, considering it's my license) Doesn't mean the GPL likes it.
>
> Well,
"Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
know-it-all bullshit opinions which I nei
Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Btw, neither Caldera, RedHat, SuSE, Corel, Mandrake, Slackware,...
> seem to think there's much of a problem. Any idea why that would be?
> Are their lawyers any different from Debian lawyers?
None of these folks operate in the distributed fashion of d
Montreal Fri May 28 08:50:34 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KDE was pulled for LEGAL reasons. They are close to being resolved, but
> to be quite honest, all the people pretending they are political and not
> legal are GETTING IN THE WAY of fixing the problem.
Btw, neither Calde
Montreal Fri May 28 08:23:17 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please don't be dissuaded by politicians or their harassment.
> > Apparently the authors think it's okay, so if you want to do it, just
> > go right ahead. You might want to establish a dialog with the
> > AbiSource fo
Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
know-it-all bullshit opinions which I neither asked for nor wanted.
So, to all the debian-legal m
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:37:37AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
>
> Under Linux, why are you using GTK+ instead of Qt? Politics. Most of
> the truly nerdy open source people prefer GTK+, since Qt is not quite
> free enough for the deepest dogma. We want the enthusiasm of those
> super-geeks righ
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:41:51PM +1000, Andrew Wansink wrote:
> I wasn't talking about the licenses, what I describe as a gnome plot
> is all this unsolicited harassment by people trying to discourage
> me. When I want counsel, I'll call a real solicitor. In the meantime,
> keep your twit ag
Montreal Fri May 28 00:31:13 1999
Under Linux, why are you using GTK+ instead of Qt? Politics. Most of
the truly nerdy open source people prefer GTK+, since Qt is not quite
free enough for the deepest dogma. We want the enthusiasm of those
super-geeks right from the beginning, so we are making t
I wasn't talking about the licenses, what I describe as a gnome plot
is all this unsolicited harassment by people trying to discourage
me. When I want counsel, I'll call a real solicitor. In the meantime,
keep your twit agendas to yourselves.
I am really in no need of people telling me what I
19 matches
Mail list logo
