Thanks Brian and Richard. If the upstream author gives signs of
live, I'll give up this change. He's been MIA for about 6 weeks.
Peter
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> Still not quite right. This doesn't deal with the fact that xforms might
> come on the same media as the program. I think John or Ric
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing this program in
> object code or executable form under Section 3 of the GNU General Public
> License, assume that the complete source code for this program does not
> include the xforms library
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 01:48:51PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> 1- read the rest of the email and you'll notice the further
> change to:
>
> You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing this
> program in object code or executable form under Section 3 of the GNU
> General
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > That won't work. The additional permission granted doesn't help us,
> > since we also distribute Qt itself.
>
> 1- read the rest of the email and you'll notice the further
> change to:
Sorry, elm only showed me the first part because
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing this program
> in object code or executable form under Section 3 of the GNU General
> Public License, assume that the xforms library (Copyright (c) by
> T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) is normally distributed with
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
> >
> >Additionally, you are granted permission to
> > assume, for the purposes of distributing this program in object code or
> > executable
John Hasler wrote:
> Peter writes:
> > However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a difference?
>
> I assume you meant to write "...he wouldn't sue..."?
Sorry. Right.
> Most of the authors who publish under whacky non-free licenses probably
> wouldn't sue. Lawsuits are not the onl
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 02:59:35PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
> >
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > under the terms of the GNU General Public License a
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
> Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the L
Peter writes:
> However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a difference?
I assume you meant to write "...he wouldn't sue..."?
Most of the authors who publish under whacky non-free licenses probably
wouldn't sue. Lawsuits are not the only reason to be careful, though. We
also want to m
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, Debian might be happy because they have clarified that
> > linking against XForms is okay. But, am I to conclude that
> > Debian doesn't agree with their argument that while they were
> > using the GPL without clar
John Hasler wrote:
> > Would adding the email from the copyright holder be enough of a
> > clarification?
>
> Perhaps. Can we see the email?
It's a bunch of separate emails, some even asking me to take up
complete maintainership of the first package (xwatch) and saying I
can edit the license t
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> In your above example, the _hydrid_ would be created and
> distributed by the owner of the copyright, and it still couldn't
> go into Debian. Right?
That is the Debian policy. It is not one I agree with, but I was outvoted
and I see no point in further debating the po
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, Debian might be happy because they have clarified that
> linking against XForms is okay. But, am I to conclude that
> Debian doesn't agree with their argument that while they were
> using the GPL without clarification they were still okay
> lice
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:32:53AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > On the gripping hand, if the owner of the copyright for abiword (which may
> > not be a well-defined entity if significant contributions have been made
> > by multiple people under GPL) chooses to link a
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a little weird to me. If the upstream author links against
> Qt or XForms and releases under the GPL, doesn't that nullify
> whatever GPL clause against that?
The GPL doesn't have a clause against that.
The GPL has clauses about distribution of
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On the gripping hand, if the owner of the copyright for abiword (which may
> not be a well-defined entity if significant contributions have been made
> by multiple people under GPL) chooses to link against restricted libs,
> that's fine and dandy, as permission to do so is gran
17 matches
Mail list logo
