Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the
> modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the
> modified program don't care to ask for the source code?
Anybody who gets the binary is under the GPL entitled to the source -
"gets the
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Monday 16 March 2009 22:43:22 Tim Moore wrote:
>> I'm working on something that might completely ignore the material settings
>> in the .ac file, but I think that's OK. I'm adding support for effects
>> files that specify, in addition to the material and pa
* Jon S. Berndt -- Tuesday 17 March 2009:
> Everyone must have access to the source code.
Only those who got the binary, directly or indirectly. From the FAQ
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource:
| My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply sourc
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 14:11:38 Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> > > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> > > right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> > right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the
> entities
> > receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code?
>
> In short: no. The GPL doesn't requir
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> > right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
> > receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the
Hi Arnt,
>> Without reviewing the maketg logs of the form templogNN.txt,
> ..doh! You still want my 1.0.2 logs?
No, but it will always help on some items, to be able
to 'see' the current log(s) if more errors. The 'log' you
included with your 3rd email, seems to be from using maketg
v 1.0.2??? T
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:34:19 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
>
> > There are some things we need to know that aren’t described below.
> > Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be
> > distributing an existing FlightGe
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
> Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the
> right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities
> receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code?
In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights f
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:23:09 -0500, Jon wrote in message
<00a201c9a6ea$60534dc0$20f9e9...@net>:
> There are some things we need to know that aren't described below.
> Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be
> distributing an existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> There are some things we need to know that aren’t described below. Was
> the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an
> existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention
> where FlightGea
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:09:55 +0100 (CET), Frederic wrote in message
<26870652.2296231237277395051.javamail.r...@spooler4-g27.priv.proxad.net>:
> - "Ron Jensen" a écrit :
> If I can wear my Devil's advocate hat : What if the receiver of the
> modified software doesn't require the sources ?
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:08:02 +1100, George wrote in message
<5b12e0960903161908h699b16a5n40dca9d26ef94...@mail.gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Curtis Olson
> wrote:
> > Here's a hypothetical question.
> >
> > Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
>
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:30:55 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
:
> Here's a hypothetical question.
>
> Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's
> say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear.
There are some things we need to know that aren't described below. Was the
FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an
existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention
where FlightGear source can be obtained. If they have modified source code
to F
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Here's a hypothetical question.
>
> Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say
> they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a
> demo system to a co
James Sleeman ha scritto:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
>
>> Has the GPL been violated?
>>
> Probably, [...]
>
>
I absolutely agree with James: money, or demo releases are not kept in
consideration when considering GPL Violation such Curtis scenario:
If you legally obtain the binary you have th
Hello there,
In the YASim source code I found a mention to a TeX documentation. I was not
able to find it on the Wiki, and googling gave no result.
Does it exist, and where could I find it, please ?
Cheerio,
JB
--
Apps b
Hi Tim,
On Monday 16 March 2009 22:43:22 Tim Moore wrote:
> I'm working on something that might completely ignore the material settings
> in the .ac file, but I think that's OK. I'm adding support for effects
> files that specify, in addition to the material and parameter properties we
> have now
Hi Martin,
On Monday 16 March 2009 21:25:06 Martin Spott wrote:
> Now, we already have approx. 1k5 3D Scenery models, so chances are high
> that quite a few are affected by such a change and I'd be happy to
> apply an automated conversion if this is technically possible.
Attached is the script I
Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a hypothetical question.
> >
> > Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype that
> > incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
>
> Murky waters here. And a slippery sl
- "Ron Jensen" a écrit :
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Here's a hypothetical question.
> >
> > Let's say some company "A" builds an internal product prototype
> that
> > incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system.
>
> Murky waters here. And
Hi Rob,
Rob Oates wrote:
> Why not simply ship scenery compiled with the osm data under a different
> license?
A lot of what ends up in our Scenery is covered by the GPL and
personally I don't feel like having our own license debate about how to
deal with this stuff.
This alone is, from my persp
23 matches
Mail list logo
