Compulsory checkin clauses.

2000-08-04 Thread Ross N. Williams
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

Re: Interpreters

2000-08-04 Thread David Johnson
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

Re: Interpreters

2000-08-04 Thread John Cowan
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

Interpreters

2000-08-04 Thread Terry Hancock
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