On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:10:14 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
[...]
> They can do it because the license never changed, it was *just*
> distributed under a different set of terms (the GPLv2+ says you can
> distribute it as if it were GPLv3+ and everything is tidy -- it does *not*
> say you can yell "
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:32:57AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think the problem here is the notion that a file necessarily has
> exactly one licence.
Totally agree.
[snip]
> So it is true that a downstream redistributor who does not change F
> cannot "change the licence", because the only per
Paul Tagliamonte writes ("Re: GPL "+" question"):
> They *can* since the work as modified *can* be distributed under the
> terms of the GPLv3+, *without* changing the original work's license, but
> the *file* can be distributed as GPLv3+, since that's the
> > I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to
> > someone else,
> I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the
> copyright owner.
That's what I meant; I probably didn't word it clearly, though.
pgp4w78cg1zYD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 31/05/15 00:10, Riley Baird wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel González wrote:
IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license...
Exactly. So, if a work is originally licensed under GPL-2+ and Person A
makes a copy and gives it to Person B under GPL-3. Now consi
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel González wrote:
> On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
> Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
> >> Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
> >> say...
> > Let's say I hold copyright on a work,
On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who woul
Charles Plessy writes:
> If it were me, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the upstream
> author of missfits, and trust him that if he added a GPLv3+ header, it
> is because he modified the files, as he says in the README.
When I adopted the first package from this author (sextractor), I as
> > > Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
>
> Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
> say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the
second license
Le Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
>
> I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> Calabretta under LGPL-2+
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:39 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte writes:
[...]
> > Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
[...]
>
> If the original license allows, then anyone can r
On 29/05/15 16:30, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Miriam Ruiz writes:
>> So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+
>> and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to
>> also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the
>> version 3 of t
> Or a CLA. Or breaking copyright law. Or modified the work and distribute
> it under a superset of the old terms. Or or or :)
For the record; I don't believe Apple is breaking copyright law, and I
didn't mean to imply that :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
wi
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:43:21PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> > I don't know any jurisdiction where I can take a work of yours and now
> > claim I have the rights to it under a different license.
>
> Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good lawyers.
Or a C
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> I don't know any jurisdiction where I can take a work of yours and now
> claim I have the rights to it under a different license.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good lawyers.
Best
Ole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
Please end this thread, it's getting nuts. Ask the FSF if you're still unclear.
Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright holder has
>> sur
Miriam Ruiz writes:
> So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+
> and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to
> also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the
> version 3 of the lincense, or later, but you're not effectiv
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright holder has
> surely the initial right to license his work, but I don't see a reason
> why he can't transfer this.
Via copyright asignment, not licensing, unless the license in
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> No, you may redistribute it under different terms, *not* relicense. You may
> *use* GPLv2+ as GPLv3+, *BUT* the original work is *STILL* GPLv2+, since
> you can't relicense works.
Sorry, but I still think "release under the terms of the General Public
License v3+" means
2015-05-29 16:06 GMT+02:00 Ole Streicher :
> Paul Tagliamonte writes:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
>>> redistribution under a later license.
>> This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the l
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:06:52PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
> >> redistribution under a later license.
> > This is key -- redistribution.
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
>> redistribution under a later license.
> This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license.
It does. Just look into the license (res
Maximilian writes:
> and this seems to imply that the end user can choose which licence
> suits them.
Not only the end user -- also (in our case) the upstream author. So, he
can choose to redistribute the files under GPL-3+. Being them modified
or not.
> However, if Emmanuel Bertin's code is spe
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
> redistribution under a later license.
This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license. If I get
this file after you say it's GPLv3, it's still LGPLv2.1+ to me
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
>> But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
>> parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
>> file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.
>
I'm probably wrong, but the code that was originally GPLv2+ remains licensed
under the GPLv2 *in addition* to the GPLv3 that the overall package is licensed
under.
The GPLv2 states that:
'if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it
and "any later version", you
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
>> packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
>> directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally release
> > > If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
> > > with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
> > > file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
> > > terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every
That's literally what I said.
d/copyright is for source not binary.
On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, "Riley Baird" <
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> wrote:
> > > I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> > > packages. The package in question is "missfits". I
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
> parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
> file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.
the terminology being thrown around
> > I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> > packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> > directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> > Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
> > Bertin) an
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> Calabretta under LGPL
> I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
> Bertin) and released
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in t
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:10 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
> "-static" or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
> resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
> violation that way then you shoul
Hi everyone,
>On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
>> new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
>> binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell,
>> und
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
>>that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
>
>
> And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
> evidence to back up his claim th
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
> anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
> his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
> at http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/tech/0002/msg0017
On 6/10/05, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > You might also observe the comments at
> > http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
> > http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
> > from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You might also observe the comments at
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
> from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
> OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Do you know whether the NSS implementation is being certified at
source code level (a very unusual arrangement) using the sort of
maneuvers mentioned in the Linux Journal article on DMLSS?
I'm not able to say - it's not my area. If you are interested,
news://news.mozi
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
> that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
evidence to back up his claim that RMS plagiarized Symbolics code. If
h
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
> anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
> his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
> at http://www.monkey.org/ope
On 6/6/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The implementation of SSL in the Netscape NSS libraries is available
> under the GPL, and I believe certain versions of it have FIPS validation.
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/fips/
I'm delighted to hear that. It does not
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Pity the MySQL folks; Progress Software were the ones who encouraged
them to switch to the GPL in the first place, and when that
relationship went bad, they fell right in with the FSF. Switching to
YaSSL is going to cost them when it comes to DoD use of MySQL, since
som
And while we're at it, if you're curious what Eben Moglen gets out of
his relationship to the FSF, you might like to read
http://www.vidomi.com/fsfpop.php . Evidently GPL "violators" retain
him as counsel to write them letters saying that their linking-ban
circumvention schemes qualify as "mere ag
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on whether there was a
quid pro quo
On 6/6/05, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And I wouldn't like to see Debian swept up in the apparent FSF
> > campaign to marginalize OpenSSL and its maintainers by threatening
> > legal action against anyone who links GPL code (F
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And I wouldn't like to see Debian swept up in the apparent FSF
> campaign to marginalize OpenSSL and its maintainers by threatening
> legal action against anyone who links GPL code (FSF copyrighted or
> not) to OpenSSL. (I have not personally bee
De: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all
> the source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text
> of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the
> Program." Such lack of attention to license deta
On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all the
> source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text of GPL section
> *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the Program." Such lack of
> attention to lice
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 08:15:36AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have no reason to believe that the GPL's claim depends on the status of
> > derivative works; it is a condition of distributing binaries under the GPL
> > that the source
On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the GPL's claim depends on the status of
> derivative works; it is a condition of distributing binaries under the GPL
> that the source to the work "and any components it contains" must be made
> available under
On 6/5/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
> > libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
> > LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
>
> The LGPL contains an ex
[Cc:ing the original poster, who posted to -mentors -- there's no reason to
expect that he's subscribed to -legal]
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will d
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (copied to debian-legal, where the discussion belongs; next person
> please cut debian-mentors)
>
> On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
>> new library in the
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
> libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
> LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
The LGPL contains an explicit provision that allows relicensing
to GPL (section 3 LGPL).
(copied to debian-legal, where the discussion belongs; next person
please cut debian-mentors)
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
> new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
> bi
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program
> from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out
> to be really difficult. Currently, I'm preparing a reply to their lawyer (I
> have no legal training my
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:03, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with
> "Jim", I think it is. If the answer is "Jill", it most likely is not.
>
> So...
>
> What do you all say about this?
I say that the answer is "Jim," but that this is not as
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:52:06PM +0300 wrote:
> The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for
> licensing questions but I forget what it was.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Spencer Hal Visick
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www
On 20020906T180308+0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place
> to ask this question, and failed.
The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for
licensing questions but I forget what it was.
> That is my question. W
Hello!
This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place
to ask this question, and failed.
I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program
from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out
to be really difficult. Currently
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> >> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY th
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is
> entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable
> entity.
Nope, it's not. But since you don't listen, it's pointless to keep
talking to you.
--
To UNS
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that
> NeXTStep distributed only the object files
It's in "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism" by RMS,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
"Consider GNU Ob
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
> > of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
> > That makes it a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
> > of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
> > That makes it a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
> of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
> That makes it a derivative work of the kernel.
In theory, one could design a patch for
also sprach John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]:
> >However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes
> >the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source,
> >because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's
> >what the GPL req
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
> >A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
> >Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
> >lacking direct permission (rather painful for
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wis
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the rights of authorship in, he may d
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they
> figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after
> him. There's a substantial difference.
And what we're talking about is exactly that. Eben Moglen, who
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
> > It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license
> > and/or
>
> That's sort o
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
> It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or
That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a
court to
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> > the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> > has the rights of authorship in, he may
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
However, his patches are patches *of
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
A patch to a pro
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, martin f krafft wrote:
>[please cc me on responses]
>
>hey wise people,
>
>i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
>selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
>advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
>kern
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel
> source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all
> his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches
> for the kernel, righ
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:15, martin f krafft wrote:
> [please cc me on responses]
>
> hey wise people,
>
> i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
> selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
> advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he pat
[please cc me on responses]
hey wise people,
i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
kernel here and there, and because he added userland stuf
Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>However, if your printing server component is a library and is GPLed,
> then every work linked to it has to be GPLed (or have an even less
> restrictive license).
>
> > Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD?
>
>Th
Scripsit Mike Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
> application. We are looking to write a central printing server
> component which would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I
> understand that we would need to release the pr
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000, Mike Cunningham wrote:
> I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
> application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which
> would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to
> release the pr
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:13:30 +0100
From: Mike Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> Um.. debian-legal doesn't engage in handing out legal advice.
>
> We're focussed o
Hi everyone.
Just joined the list and I'd *really* appreciate your advice on the part of the
GPL that allows for exclusion of "identifiable sections" (i.e. section 2).
The situation is:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to writ
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Matthew Simpson wrote:
> > You are free to use and distribute any command string in the Printer
> > Technical Reference. I double checked this with my manager. The only
That seems like a pretty straightforward answer to me. What aspect of the
law are you worried about violat
Hello,
My Debian developer application is in the works. I plan on being the
Debian maintainer for my own program, called "pup" (Printer Utility
Program).
The first version, which has been out since last August at:
http://pup.hypermart.net
is only an ink cartridge maintainance utility program for
90 matches
Mail list logo
