On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Not according to Stallman, there are issues with other clauses. This is a
> > popular misconception.
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00119.html
>
> This appears to be specific to the Apache license. Cf the FSF license
> di
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:54:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't
> > contain the advertising clause.
>
> Not according to Stallman, there are issues with other
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:
>
> > Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to
> > the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be
> > distributed under the BSD license?
>
> The application without
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
> begin David Johnson quotation:
>
> > Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts
> > to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be
> > distributed under the BSD license?
>
> A licence adheres to a particular
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts to
> the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be
> distributed under the BSD license?
The application without the library of course is distributable under
its own
begin David Johnson quotation:
> Okay, followup question. If a BSD application automatically converts
> to the GPL by linking to a GPL library, can the application still be
> distributed under the BSD license?
A licence adheres to a particular _copy_ of a copyrighted work. Take a
third party's
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
> "If you like my program you must vote for Bush."
Except that you used the word "must", whereas the original request for
cash used the word "can". I read this as an option, not a requirement.
In any case, a statement like this would be better included in
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > No. BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL. You'd
> > > leave out those people who were using these licenses to interoperate
> > > with software licensed under non-GPL terms as a single work.
> >
> > Hmmm, this isn't how I un
"If you like my program you must vote for Bush."
-Original Message-
From: Steve Mallett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The "M" word...money.
Is there anything wrong (philosophically or "letter of the license" wise)
wit
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Considering a GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough.
Eh? Who would not have been satisfied with a genuinely GPL-compatible
QPL?
--
__
\/ o\ Employ me! Cryptology, security, Perl, Linux, TCP/IP, and smarts.
/\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]http:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The BSD SW would convert to GPL, which is allowable if it doesn't
> contain the advertising clause.
Not according to Stallman, there are issues with other clauses. This is a
popular misconception.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00119.h
Is there anything wrong (philosophically or "letter of the license" wise) with a
programmer releasing his code with an additional message after the license
statement that may state something like"If you like my program you can mail me
a chq at."?
With all currently approved licenses?
--
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Greg Wright wrote:
> On 4/09/00 at 10:58 Rob Levin wrote:
>
> >I've tried this repeatedly via the appropriate channels. Please remove:
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >from the mailing list.
> >
> >Thank you.
>
>
> Its probably better to ask that a foot
I think the biggest motivation for TrollTech to multiple-license
Qt is to create a de facto standard, to try to overtake Gtk+.
They surely seen that Gtk+ is the prefered toolkit for the Linux
users and considered the GPLing as a way to survive.
IHMO the Qt toolkit is technically superior to Gtk+
test
unsubscribe license-discuss
begin:vcard
n:Benedict, Sr.;Martin V.
tel;cell:(315)868-5924
tel;fax:(775)587-0249
tel;home:(315)866-5924
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
adr:;;324 Marion Street;Herkimer;New York;13350;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Martin V. Benedict, Sr.
end:vcard
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 09:25:58AM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL.
>
> Artistic isn't convertible to GPL: It requires project forks to take
> new names, which is not a GPL-compatible requirement.
>
> (I'
No need to cc: me. I'm on the list.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:39:34AM -0400, Lou Grinzo wrote:
> This latest exchange points out one of the most troubling aspects of
> software licensing--even many of the people who care about such
> issues and closely read the licenses can't always agree on ex
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL.
Artistic isn't convertible to GPL: It requires project forks to take
new names, which is not a GPL-compatible requirement.
(I'm not surprised you'd think it was convertible, though. Perl is
dually license
-Original Message-
From: Simon Tatham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Simon
Tatham
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 9:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NASM - Don't hate me.
"Nelson Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're a hard man to get in contact with.
In what wa
Someone just pointed this out to me:
"Re:How hard would it be to change the NASM license (Score:2, Informative)
by Simon Tatham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Tuesday September 05, @03:55AM EST
(#136)
(User #66941 Info) http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/
You write:
I'm just wondering what woul
This latest exchange points out one of the most troubling aspects of
software licensing--even many of the people who care about such
issues and closely read the licenses can't always agree on exactly what
is and isn't allowed.
In this case, I think it would help everyone a great deal if the FSF
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:34:31PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > The reason it would have been impossible is that it would cause a huge
> > > number of Qt based applications, including major portions of KDE, be
> > > become illegal. With a GPL
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:29:36AM -0500, Nelson Rush wrote:
> Are you kidding? The fact that Sun is actually going to, let alone actually
> considered to, release Star Office under the GPL is more than a mere, "How
> do you do?" It's quite astounding, and in fact quite improbable.
StarOffice is
Making "non authorized copies" is slavery!
If you don't have power over other people, you are a slave.
Boy, that is extreme.
25 matches
Mail list logo
