Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seconds, since when do we consider the GPL to be viral?
Don't know about you, but the FSF does - it has created the LGPL because
of this.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just because something is also political statement doesn't make it
evil or wrong.
Yup.
I think it's rather rude to respond to an ITP by publicly questioning
the choice of license (as long as it's a valid license for Debian).
-Miles
--
I'm beginning to
#include hallo.h
* Miles Bader [Fri, May 12 2006, 03:08:47PM]:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just because something is also political statement doesn't make it
evil or wrong.
Yup.
I think it's rather rude to respond to an ITP by publicly questioning
the choice of license (as
also sprach Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.12.0758 +0200]:
This means that you need to either license your work under the
GPL, or a license which is compatible with the GPL. [It also means
that you'll need to provide your source code, but one would hope
you were going to do that
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seconds, since when do we consider the GPL to be viral?
Don't know about you, but the FSF does - it has created the LGPL because
of this.
Actually, they don't. They consider the GPL a
* martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060512 09:50]:
also sprach Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.12.0758 +0200]:
This means that you need to either license your work under the
GPL, or a license which is compatible with the GPL. [It also means
that you'll need to provide your source
also sprach Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.12.1254 +0200]:
So cxxtools authors should allow you to use their code in your
application even if they are not allowed to use your code in theirs?
This is of course no unreasonable petition, but I suggest noone to
fullfil it without
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:35:50PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seconds, since when do we consider the GPL to be viral?
Don't know about you, but the FSF does - it has created the LGPL
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: cxxtools
Version : 1.4.1pre2
Upstream Author : Tommi Mäkitalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.tntnet.org/
* License : GPL v2 or later
Programming Lang: C++
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications. Why don't
you choose (if possible) a less viral licence?
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`.
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications.
Non-GPL compatible applications, you mean?
Why don't you
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications.
Non-GPL compatible
Frank Küster wrote:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
That will make it pretty useless for
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications.
[...]
As a derived work of a GPL'd work, the aggregate is covered by the GPL
license.
So the aggregate, in other words the *application* would be a
GPL-application, right? Which makes the
Frank Küster wrote:
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
also sprach Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1702 +0200]:
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications.
Non-GPL compatible applications, you mean?
Yeah well. IMHO that pretty much excludes all sensible licences.
Why don't you choose (if possible) a less viral
Le jeudi 11 mai 2006 à 16:46 +0200, martin f krafft a écrit :
also sprach Kari Pahula [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
* License : GPL v2 or later
That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications. Why don't
you choose (if possible) a less viral licence?
I think
also sprach Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.2219 +0200]:
I think this is the whole point of licensing a library under the GPL.
For me the point of a library is code reuse. Putting a library under
the GPL is more of a political statement.
There's not much point in using a
Wow. First off, Kari does not appear to be upstream, so who are
you addressing?
Him. I think he's in the better position to talk to upstream about
it. Or in fact not make the package.
Oh, come on. It's the author's perogative as to how the work is
licensed, and since it adheres to the
On Thu, 11 May 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.05.11.2219 +0200]:
I think this is the whole point of licensing a library under the GPL.
For me the point of a library is code reuse. Putting a library under
the GPL is more of a political
23 matches
Mail list logo
