On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 08:48:19PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
People only go to court if they think they can invalidate
the license - it's a testiment to the GPL that so few
actions actually make it that far.
Eventually someone will make similar mistakes with GPLv3
that were made with
This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not being able to
find it.
I was wondering if someone on the list can please explain the relationship that
GPLv3 has in preventing Apple from distributing updated builds with their
operating systems. I've read over the GPLv3 (I'm not
On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not being
able to find it.
No apology needed. We can discuss this topic on this list.
I was wondering if someone on the list can please explain the
relationship that GPLv3 has in
On 31/10/2010, at 1:03 AM, John H Terpstra j...@samba.org wrote:
On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not being
able to find it.
No apology needed. We can discuss this topic on this list.
I was wondering if someone on
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 04:00:21AM +1100, Stephen Norman wrote:
Prevention may have been a poor choice of words here. I guess what I'm
asking is, if Apple was to ship Samba 3.2 or above with their OS, what other
parts of the OS (if any) would need to be released under GPLv3? For instance,
Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to spread FUD about Samba or the GPL. I'm
just trying to understand how the license changes may or may not effect the
software I work with on a daily basis.
On 31/10/2010, at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Allison j...@samba.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 04:00:21AM
Apologies for the previous message. Its what happens at 4 in the morning!
On 31/10/2010, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Norman stenorman2...@me.com wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to spread FUD about Samba or the GPL.
I'm just trying to understand how the license changes may or may not
On 10/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephen Norman wrote:
On 31/10/2010, at 1:03 AM, John H Terpstra j...@samba.org wrote:
On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not
being able to find it.
No apology needed. We can discuss this topic
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Stephen Norman stenorman2...@me.com wrote:
Apologies for the previous message. Its what happens at 4 in the morning!
On 31/10/2010, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Norman stenorman2...@me.com wrote:
I've read and Googled quiet extensively regarding GPLv3 before posting
Forget our war of words. It looks like Apple and the FSF can't get along at the
moment.
http://lwn.net/Articles/405417/
I apologise for my confusion as it does appear to be a problem between Apple
and the FSF.
Cheers,
Stephen
On 31/10/2010, at 5:29 AM, John H Terpstra j...@samba.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 05:16:53AM +1100, Stephen Norman wrote:
I'm not sure if you could say that Apple doesn't like GPLv3, so that is
spreading FUD there as well. Regardless, my guess would be that their legal
department has made a case that it might open them for some legal action
Hi Jermey,
Thanks for helping me understand all the a bit better.
According to discussions on the LLVM mailing list (sorry I don't have the link)
when LLVM's libc++ was released, a number of people commented saying that Apple
employees are currently unable to work on GPLv3 software, possibly
12 matches
Mail list logo
