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
discussion
begin David Johnson quotation:
The work _as_a_whole_ must be under the GPL, but the individual
components don't have to be so long as they fulfill the GPL's
distribution requirements.
That is correct. I was speaking of the combined work. (There are
several key terms in the GNU GPL:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
begin David Johnson quotation:
The work _as_a_whole_ must be under the GPL, but the individual
components don't have to be so long as they fulfill the GPL's
distribution requirements.
That is correct. I was speaking of the combined work.
I
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/Proprietary dual-license one has to either
write a GPL application or pay
e-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 12:42 AM
To: License-Discuss
Subject: Re: Qt and the GPL
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:57:53PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
I mentioned the idea of triple licensing (o
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
be a good idea, for some cases.)
Lou
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License-Discuss
Subject: Re: Qt and the GPL
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason it would have been
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
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.
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]
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 understand it.
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, 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 _copy_
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 the
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 Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 03:35:22PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there will be separate versions (and I hope there won't), then this
will be the first time (that I am aware of) that a GPLd library will
be available with an identical
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:57:53PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, Nelson Rush wrote:
I mentioned the idea of triple licensing (or dual licensing) qt in this way
in June to Trolltech. They told me where I could stick it then and it looks
like they've reconsidered it now.
17 matches
Mail list logo
