Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
protect the innocent):
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms of Progfoo, wit
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...license omitted...]
Now what I want to know is:
a) Can I just replace this file with the GPL (obviously the copyrights
in the files will remain intact and all work will be attributed to the
original authors)?
It says you can, but I wouldn'
Ben Collins writes:
> a) Can I just replace this file with the GPL (obviously the copyrights in
> the files will remain intact and all work will be attributed to the
> original authors)?
Leave that file in place and add another one that explains that in
accordance with the license on the original
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:12:57 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
> The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
> protect the innocent):
[BSD-style without ad clause]
> ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be di
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes:
>Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
>The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
>protect the innocent):
>
>
>Redistr
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm pretty
> sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know how they
> were handled. This is just from a discussion I had with someone.
>
> Can you
Nils Lohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you take GPL'ed code and use it with a closed source program? i.e.
> take the GPL'ed program do_everything and someone wants to write a library
> for it that's do_one_more_thing but keep the library closed, is that OK? If
> they want to distribute
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > pretty sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know
> > how they were handled. This is just from a discussion I had with
> > someone.
> >
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suggest going to ftp.be.com and checking out the /pub/gnu directory.
> > They have done exactly this with their boot loader. It uses some parts of
> > the Linux kernel (those parts are released in source), and some parts are
> > proprietary (thos pa
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:37:07AM -0400, Collins M. Ben wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > pretty
> > sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know how they
> > w
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 11:18:07AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:37:07AM -0400, Collins M. Ben wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > > pretty
> > > sure
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suggest going to ftp.be.com and checking out the /pub/gnu directory.
> > They have done exactly this with their boot loader. It uses some parts of
> > the Linux kernel (those parts are released in source), and some parts are
> > proprietary (thos p
> However in the case of the objective C compiler I cannot see what
> would legally prevent the NeXT model. NeXT would distribute GPL'ed
> source code; which they are allowed to. They would also distribute
> some proprietary object files which just happened to be able to
> link together with the GP
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > They would also distribute
> > some proprietary object files which just happened to be able to
> > link together with the GPL'ed source code. FSF can't prevent that.
> the trick: it doesn't just happen to link with the gpl code, it requires it
> an
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 06:18:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Would that mean that a program that happens to run only under Linux
> 2.2.x is a modification of Linux and so MUST be GPL'ed?
No. Linux is not GPL. It's GPL + a special exception (or clarification,
if you will) that linking again
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if you will) that linking against the syscalls is considered use and not
> derivation.
I was reacting to someone who seemed to think that "use" implies
"deriviation".
--
Henning Makholm
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I was reacting to someone who seemed to think that "use" implies
> "deriviation".
Then we don't read messages the same way.
Anyway, "use" is expressedly not governed by the GPL. The problem is
whether something is "use" or "deriv
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 07:21:45PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 06:18:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Would that mean that a program that happens to run only under Linux
> > 2.2.x is a modification of Linux and so MUST be GPL'ed?
>
> No. Linux is not GPL.
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:37:07AM -0400, Collins M. Ben wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > Can you take GPL'ed code and use it with a closed source program? i.e.
> > take the GPL'ed program do_everything and someone wants to write a library
> > for it
actually, be is not violating a licence. the bootloader/kernel use gnu
malloc, which is lgpl'ed. they use gnu termcap and crypt as well, but only
in telnet and top and they do publish the sources there.
--p.
"For a price I'd do about anything, except pull the trigger: for that I'd
need a pretty go
20 matches
Mail list logo
