For the concrete example of Microsoft using parts of Linux, they would
legally have to release the source of Windows under the GPL. This
will *never* happen while pigs remain land bound animals, but if it
did, I'm sure that the Free Software Foundation (and anyone who
believes in the philosophy w
On 11/12/01 2:38 PM, "Paul Guyot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine. Actually, the problem rose with a very practical problem. Can
> one release VNC client or MAD library which are both GPL'd under
> NewtonOS. I'm trying to figure out what the issue here exactly taking
> examples with MacOS Power
Paul Guyot wrote:
> The big problem is BSD requiring to retain the list of conditions. Here
> as well, we're back to the subject of the thread. If it didn't require
> this, I agree that it would be fully compatible with the GPL (with
> section 1 of the GPL allowing to keep copyright & disclai
>>>Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>>notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>
>>means that I have to retain the list of conditions from the BSD
>>license or the list of conditions from another license (say GPL) if
>>my code is licensed und
>If, like Metrowerks, you include the source for F with every copy of your
>compiler, then yes it is.
You cannot release PowerPlant source, so either we infringe section 1
of the OSD or section 2, at your choice.
> > What's the difference in the GPL between this solution and developing
> > a
Paul Guyot wrote:
>> Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
>> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> means that I have to retain the list of conditions from the BSD license
> or the list of conditions from another license (say GPL) if my cod
On 11/12/01 4:19 AM, "Paul Guyot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This analogy doesn't fit. Everyone who has Mac CodeWarrior has PowerPlant.
>
> Well, I'd admit that, although each version of CW comes with a new
> incompatible version of PowerPlant but the compilers remain
> compatible (if not ide
>I'm not sure, since that clause is basically obsolete (though the
>Apache License still has it). I think that it applies to all
>derivative works, however.
What's the difference with clause 1 and 2, they don't apply to all
derivative works? (this was my primary problem, sorry to repeat it).
>
>I think the deal here is that things normally distributed with
>*the compiler* are no problem, even if the compiler isn't normally
>distributed with the OS. After all, Solaris is distributed without
>a compiler, and nobody doubts that you can compile GNU utilities
>with the (non-free) cc.
As I
>This analogy doesn't fit. Everyone who has Mac CodeWarrior has PowerPlant.
Well, I'd admit that, although each version of CW comes with a new
incompatible version of PowerPlant but the compilers remain
compatible (if not identical for the 68K one) within versions.
So I guess you agree with th
10 matches
Mail list logo
