À (At) 2:37 -0800 24/12/03, Karsten M. Self écrivait (wrote) :
It's generally considered inconsiderate, not to mention an indiscrete
advertisement of a potentially vacant house, to allow 'vacation'
autoresponses to list mail.
I've received over a half-dozen of same in response to my most recent
pos
>Agreed. (And I agree that the compilation case is not very
>different from the derivative-work case, as well.)
>
>But since B is *licensed* by A (whether by a public license or
>otherwise) to incorporate a in b, there can be no breach of A's
>copyright.
Indeed if B licenses her work without inf
>By no means, and this *is* the key point.
Yes, you're right, it is the key point.
>Suppose I wish to
>write a scholarly work on the subject of your poetry, and I
>intend to quote *in extenso* from it; say, seven poems in their
>entirety, to which I provide detailed textual notes.
>
>I apply to
>Umm, not exactly. Let's factor out the GPL for a moment and just
>look at a proprietary program some of whose modules are BSD.
You're right, it's a different problem.
>This is perfectly all right with the BSD license, since as I said it is not
>a copyleft.
>
>Suppose that A creates an original
À (At) 20:19 -0500 26/11/01, John Cowan écrivait (wrote) :
> > There is nevertheless BSD clause #2. It says
>> that if you release in binary form, you should also include the BSD
>> license in the documentation.
>
>And so you must, but the license is not *effective* over the work as
>a whole, o
[Is it really useful to cross-post to license-approval?]
À (At) 14:54 -0800 26/11/01, David Johnson écrivait (wrote) :
>I wasn't aware that there was a problem with BSD-GPL compatibility. There are
>many GPLd projects with some source files under the BSD license (KDE, Linux,
>etc.) with narry a c
>1. Put the license on a web page in HTML form. We will convert
>it into the same style as the existing approved licenses. You can
>help us by publishing it in that style yourself to save us the
>conversion step.
The BSD-Lite license can be found here:
http://www.kallisys.org/bsd-lite/bsd-
Hi all,
I would like to get the Kallisys Reflexive License (KRL) approved by
the Open Source Initiative.
This submission (for the Draft 3) replaces the previous submission
for the Draft 2.
Changes for Draft 3:
* Victor Rehorst and Abe Kornelis submitted several corrections to
the American tex
>>>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
>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
>I had some of your concerns with CodeWarrior and wrote directly to the FSF
>who told me that they had no problem with my releasing GPL'ed CodeWarrior
>code that used PowerPlant. Their point was that anyone else with CodeWarrior
>could compile it. They also allow MFC in GPLed code.
Wait. Let's sa
>If modifications are allowed *and* the license applies to
>itself, then each and every user is allowed to modify the
>license text...
Except that the license has to be included into the documentation (as
such) AND use (as defined in the license) of any work based on the
covered work has to be
>"Relicense" is a misleading expression, and should probably be
>avoided, as it leads to wifty thinking.
Alright, thanks for the advice.
>What is meant is that program A, licensed under BSD, can be
>combined with program B, licensed under GPL, to produce a new
>work A+B licensed under the GPL, b
Hi all,
Still on Sunday morning issues.
I have an interpretation of the GPL and I would love to be proved
wrong because it makes the use of a lot of open source code
impossible on NewtonOS.
It's about this paragraph of section 3:
>The source code for a work means the preferred form of the wo
Hi all,
There is something which seems weird to me this morning and you will
probably tell me where my reasonning goes wrong.
You seem to consider on this list that one can re-license anything
under BSD under the GPL -- well, a lot of people seems to consider
this, including the FSF, but ther
Hi Abe,
>I did a quick read of your license and found
>nothing that will let me modify the licensed code.
Thanks for that clever remark. For me, it was obviously included into
a use of the covered work (since a big feature of open source is that
you can use the source :), but I agree that it w
Hi all,
I would like to get the Kallisys Reflexive License (KRL) approved by
the Open Source Initiative.
This submission (for the Draft 2) replaces the previous submission
for the Draft 1.
Changes for Draft 2:
* Abe Kornelis cleverly remarked that the idea that one could modify
the covered wo
Hi all,
I would like to get the Kallisys Reflexive License (KRL) approved by
the Open Source Initiative.
>1. Put the license on a web page in HTML form. We will convert
>it into the same style as the existing approved licenses. You can
>help us by publishing it in that style yourself to s
21 matches
Mail list logo
