On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:46:17 +0200, Daniel Qarras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And the answer to the question is that of course the copyright holder
>> can use the LGPL for any code he so chooses. That does not answer the
>> question of whether some else can distribute the modified program code u
And the answer to the question is that of course the copyright holder
can use the LGPL for any code he so chooses. That does not answer the
question of whether some else can distribute the modified program code under
the LGPL.
IMO the LGPL does not specifically allow distributing modified non li
From: CopyNight New York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: CopyNight New York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CopyNight New York Message
Greetings CopyNighters,
You know the drill. CopyNight NYC is tomorrow night:
8pm at Swift's on East 4th Street between Lafayette and Bowery. We'll
probably
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:37:41 +0200, Daniel Qarras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a
>software package that is not a software library in any sense and
>therefore I would need to know exactly how to do it when LGPL is
>
Daniel Qarras writes:
> I notice that, e.g., Linux distributions (including Debian, Red Hat, and
> SuSE) are shipping slightly modified/patched versions of OOo as part of
> their distributions but they claim the license is LGPL. But since, e
Because only the copyright owners can forbid it, and the
Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a
software package that is not a software library in any sense and
therefore I would need to know exactly how to do it when LGPL is
actually requiring modifications to be software libraries.
What rights are hoping to allow peop
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:39:10 + (UTC)
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not aware of any other licences that prohibit further restrictions
> on downstream recipients. As a more or less kind-hearted head of an
> otherwise evil empire, you might be willing to give away your
> a
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> > Many players were hedging their bets, they
> > were prepared to consider staying with Windows 3.1, flipping to OS/2,
> > Solaris, UnixWare, or Linux.
>
> Which is one reason why so many of them were so late with 32 b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefaan A Eeckels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There can only be what the copyright holder decides the "source" code
>to be. If there's nothing left but the binary, then obviously the GPL
>makes little sense; any license t
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:47:58 + (UTC)
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rui
> Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in
> >using the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rui
Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in using
>the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could find himself in
>infringement since he could not
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:40:29 +0100, Ian Hilliard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>> The irony is that Linux actually had easier to use tools. Tools like
>> Python, Perl/TK, GTK, and Java AWT made it really easy to create really
>> simple and ef
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:22:34 +0100, Merijn de Weerd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-02-26, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:59:23 +0200, Daniel Qarras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a
>>> software pa
On 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>> Microsoft won with Win95, because it was easier to produce eye-catching
>> graphical application, than it was with Win3.1 or any of the Unix
>> variants. In fact, I was doing a SCADA Master Controller in 95 on SunOS.
>> The project ended up work
On 2006-02-26, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:59:23 +0200, Daniel Qarras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a
>> software package that is not a software library in any sense and
>> therefore I would need to k
Personal note from Jay Sulzberger:
Gale Brewer has begun an extraordinary effort to bring the Net to
those in New York City who today cannot afford full Net access. So
far the City Council has not yet squarely dealt with the issue of what
"access to the Net" means. This larger issue underlies th
Ian Hilliard wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>> The irony is that Linux actually had easier to use tools. Tools like
>> Python, Perl/TK, GTK, and Java AWT made it really easy to create really
>> simple and effective GUI interfaces to Linux applications. On the
After takin' a swig o' grog, Ian Hilliard belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Back in the mid-90's, Unix had X11 and Motif. There was a clone of Motif
> for Linux, but it was on very shakey ground. It was expected to be banned,
> as an illegal copy, at any time. Programming X11 directly was a great
Ian Hilliard wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>> The irony is that Linux actually had easier to use tools. Tools like
>> Python, Perl/TK, GTK, and Java AWT made it really easy to create really
>> simple and effective GUI interfaces to Linux applications. On the
Can you guys help me fully understand my requirements for the following
situation?
I've written a closed source application that runs on multimedia appliance.
I have reused the a couple of libraries from another project that runs on
the same appliance. Both of these libraries are covered by the
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
> The irony is that Linux actually had easier to use tools. Tools like
> Python, Perl/TK, GTK, and Java AWT made it really easy to create really
> simple and effective GUI interfaces to Linux applications. On the
> other hand, coding GUI int
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:59:23 +0200, Daniel Qarras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Daniel Qarras writes:
>>
>>>Surely if I make some minor changes to, e.g., OO.o's Writer it does not
>>>turn into "a software library". How come that OO.o and other non-library
>>>programs can us
Ian Hilliard wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:11 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> > Microsoft had to deal with two big threats to Windows 95, one being
> > Linux, but the even bigger one was Windows 3.1. People had to be
> > convinced to migrate to Windows 95, including the purchase of new
> > hard
On Saturday 25 February 2006 16:30, Ian Hilliard stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> [...]
>
> I like Linux and it is my preferred platform, but as long as Linux
> appears to be anti-CSS, it will not be the preferred platform for
> commercial soft
John Hasler wrote:
Daniel Qarras writes:
Surely if I make some minor changes to, e.g., OO.o's Writer it does not
turn into "a software library". How come that OO.o and other non-library
programs can use LGPL even if they not "libraries"?
There should be a "Copyright" file covering this and o
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:11 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
> Microsoft had to deal with two big threats to Windows 95, one being
> Linux, but the even bigger one was Windows 3.1. People had to be
> convinced to migrate to Windows 95, including the purchase of new
> hardware which had been secretly de
Hi,
this must be silly question but I can't figure it out:
LGPL is used for many programs that certainly are not "software
libraries". A well-known example could be OpenOffice.org. However, LGPL
2.1 section 2. says:
"a) The modified work must itself be a software library."
Surely if I make
Look at the two files being diffed in the following command, and then
look at the diff output. It's wrong, isn't it? Both files contain the
text "test1test2" with a carriage return between "test1" and "test2".
The diff command below (when I used it locally with just the file
names) omits the "test1
I think this really puts it in perspective doesn't it?
Almost since the Introduction of Windows NT, Microsoft's design
principle has always been "Memory is cheap, Cycles ar chieap, Drivers
are cheap - who cares if it's efficient".
Also "It's a personal computer, not a server, who needs security?
29 matches
Mail list logo
