CTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: NASM Licence
> Right.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:45 AM
> To: License-Discuss
> Subject: RE: NASM Licence
>
>
&
Hi Zak,
(I'm replying "to" you, and "cc" the list. Is that the approved
procedure?)
> Clause X is very ambiguous. What exactly does:
> "In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software
> may be distributed in such a way as to be compliant with the GNU
> General Public Licence...
Right.
-Original Message-
From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:45 AM
To: License-Discuss
Subject: RE: NASM Licence
> From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used
> From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> code,
> but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
>
[DJW:] That would appear to make the result
er 17, 2000 11:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: License-Discuss
Subject: Re: NASM Licence
David Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > It does seem odd. AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
> > license, regardless
At 07:40 AM 10/18/00 -0400, Frank Kotler wrote:
>Hi Zak,
>(I'm replying "to" you, and "cc" the list. Is that the approved
>procedure?)
> > Clause X is very ambiguous. What exactly does:
> > "In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software
> > may be distributed in such a way as
David Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > It does seem odd. AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
> > license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc... Also, if
the
> > product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why
Section X, which refers to the GPL, was added on to the original licence
later on by Julian Hall and Simon Tatham.
-Original Message-
From: Zak Greant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:36 PM
To: Frank Kotler
Cc: License-Discuss
Subject: Re: NASM Licence
Hi
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> It does seem odd. AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
> license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc... Also, if the
> product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the
> supplementary add-on licen
Hi Frank,
It does seem odd. AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc... Also, if the
product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the
supplementary add-on licensing information?
--zak
At 10:24 AM 10/17/00 -
Zak Greant wrote:
> This being the first message that I have seen since joining this list some
> days ago, I would guess that all of the OSI members are quite busy with
> other projects.
> However, if you repost your license, I would be happy to comment. My
> uninformed opinions should be just t
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Quite a bit ago I posted the NASM Licence to OSI for review. No one on this
> list has commented on it, and I have recieved no further input on whether it
> is even being considered for approval now.
I seem to recall a bit of discussion on it. Without going and l
Dear Nelson,
This being the first message that I have seen since joining this list some
days ago, I would guess that all of the OSI members are quite busy with
other projects.
However, if you repost your license, I would be happy to comment. My
uninformed opinions should be just the bait needed
13 matches
Mail list logo
