At 1:56 AM -0400 23/7/2000, John Cowan wrote:
>RMS wrote an article on the Plan 9 license, available at
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html .
>I have made excerpts from it here as a matter of fair use.
>
> > First, here are the provisions that make the software non-free.
> >
> > > You a
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Should a Free interpreter intended to be able to
> run proprietary programs be covered under the
> GPL or the LGPL?
Short answer: whatever license you as the author wants :-)
Long answer: It doesn't matter. The GPL does not normally cover the
output o
Terry Hancock wrote:
> Should a Free interpreter intended to be able to
> run proprietary programs be covered under the
> GPL or the LGPL?
Well, first of all, anything licensed under the LGPL is effectively
licensed under the GPL too, because anyone can take a copy and convert
it to the GPL.
Th
Hi,
I suppose this might be in a FAQ somewhere, but
I haven't found it yet:
Should a Free interpreter intended to be able to
run proprietary programs be covered under the
GPL or the LGPL?
Obviously, we want development on the interpreter
itself to remain Free, but we want people to be
able to w
4 matches
Mail list logo