Richard Braakman wrote:
> KELEMEN Peter wrote:
> > On Sat, 1999-03-27 23:24:31 -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> >
> > > Legally, you can not distribute GPL software that's been linked to
> > > xforms. To include it in Debian, it has to be compiled against fltk.
> > > If it won't compile, it has
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 02:53:21PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > KELEMEN Peter wrote:
> > > On Sat, 1999-03-27 23:24:31 -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Legally, you can not distribute GPL software that's been linked to
> > > > xforms. To include
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Darren Benham wrote:
> > The most recent version of Lyx had a license change (I am told) for the
> > very same reason.
>
> No. The current version has had a _clarification_ added, but is
> still very much GPLed (without additional clauses). See the
> Debian package or h
Peter Galbraith writes:
> Any comments from the legal crowd? Any standard add-on XForms packages
> can add to the GPL?
"You are permitted to link this program or any program derived from it to
XForms" should suffice, I would think.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hil
[Shouldn't this be on debian-legal instead of devel?]
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 04:03:20PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > BTW, I'm happy to seek a license change, I just object to BTS
> > harassment and declaration like `XWatch should not be in there'.
>
> Please,
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 03:33:06PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Peter Galbraith writes:
> > Any comments from the legal crowd? Any standard add-on XForms packages
> > can add to the GPL?
>
> "You are permitted to link this program or any program derived from it to
> XForms" should suffice, I would
> Peter Galbraith writes:
> > Any comments from the legal crowd? Any standard add-on XForms packages
> > can add to the GPL?
>
> "You are permitted to link this program or any program derived from it to
> XForms" should suffice, I would think.
What I was getting at earlier was trying to gently p
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 02:04:11PM -0800, Dragon wrote:
> What I was getting at earlier was trying to gently point out that you
> cannot modify the GPL. It's copyrighted by the FSF. You may only
> distribute it verbatim. Ergo, you can't tack anything onto the end, even
> if you rename it.. (The cop
> > cannot modify the GPL. It's copyrighted by the FSF. You may only
> > distribute it verbatim. Ergo, you can't tack anything onto the end, even
> > if you rename it.. (The copyright permits /nothing/ except verbatim
> > distribution. This is v2.)
>
> And what we were getting at earlier was tryin
David Starner wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Darren Benham wrote:
> > > The most recent version of Lyx had a license change (I am told) for the
> > > very same reason.
> >
> > No. The current version has had a _clarification_ added, but is
> > still very much GPLed (without additional cla
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> David Starner wrote:
>
> > Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Darren Benham wrote:
> > > > The most recent version of Lyx had a license change (I am told) for the
> > > > very same reason.
> > >
> > > No. The current version has had a _clarification_ added, but is
> > > s
David Starner wrote:
> > I disagree. They explicitely state that they have always used
> > the GPL,
>
> "While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it has
> in fact never been truly GPL." - From the clarification statement.
>
> That's an explicit statement that LyX was n
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> As they say: `This is *not* a change of license, but a clarification of
> the license that LyX has always used.'
In other words, LyX has always used the GPL with an additional clause.
It's just they didn't get around to writing it down until now.
The extra verbiage doe
I'd like to seek a license change for xwatch, xplot and xcolmix
(currently GPL) for something 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 ve
[Thread sent to debian-legal.]
On Monday 29 March 1999, at 21 h 31, the keyboard of Dragon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs
> licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> altered? :>
> Does this mean
> > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> > altered? :>
> > Does this mean we have to move the GPL out of main? ;>
>
> The GPL (and the DFSG, by the way) stands for software. For other stuff
> (documentation, literary work, art, standards, licences themselves),
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Remember the discussion on debian-legal a few days ago about the W3C
> standards?
> It makes sense to limit modifications on a standard. At the very least, if you
> modify and redistribute the GPL, it makes sense to force yo
Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that I'm not subscribed to Debian-legal... You cannot edit the
> GPL and call it something else, nor can you take pieces out of it. The
> GPL has full copyright.. you can only copy it verbatim. :>
Then again, [I've been told, repeatedly, though not actually
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs
> licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> altered? :>
Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's
a license, and license text is not prote
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 05:33:54PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs
> > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> > altered? :>
>
> Of course the license can be alte
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's a
> license,...
It's every bit as creative as a program.
> ... and license text is not protected by copyright.
I've seen this claim made many times. Citations, please.
--
John Hasler
> > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs
> > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> > altered? :>
>
> Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's
> a license, and license text is not protected by copyrig
22 matches
Mail list logo
