On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:34:03AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The QPL does not require patches. It prefers them, but doesn't require
them. You could just as easily provide the original for reference and
let someone else diff it (which is at least a major improvement over
requiring that only
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
Could anybody explain pine licence?
What exactly do you want to see explained?
Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
agreement: [...]
I understand this in the sense that this release is the (unmodified)
version by
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
This licence doesn't forbid to redistribute modified binaries.
This is irrelevant. The important thing is that it does not explicitly
allow redistribution of modified binaries.
This release could be modified release, IMHO.
If
Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, my examples seem to be precisely what you are talking about. Corel's
tool, using libapt, is using dpkg's command-line interface, in the same
way an IDE calls a C compiler's command-line interface. The only real
difference is in the results; gcc
Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license doesn't tell about modified binaries,
And therefore they are not allowed. An author has exclusive rights
to do just about everything with his work unless he *explicitly*
allows others to do it.
--
Henning Makholm
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
According to Joey the offending section is:
4. If you distribute copies of SNNS you may not charge anything
except the cost for the media and a fair estimate of the costs of
computer time or network time directly attributable to
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the GPL is very careful about how it defines program.
The GPL does not define program. However, FSF has a guidline for when
linking should be considered derivation. That is
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:19:06 -0800 (PST), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That doesn't matter. Static linking copies. Dynamic linking copies at run
time, which is a rather shaky argument. Executables that run dynamic libraries
are derivative of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell) writes:
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
I don't see any way the copyright on .so could affect programs that
link against it, if
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
According to Joey the offending section is:
4. If you distribute copies of SNNS you may not charge anything
except the cost for the media and a fair estimate of the costs of
My wording is taken from the Artistic license.
See /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic
The relevants parts are:
Package refers to the collection of files distributed by the
Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files
created through textual
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
is a device
Zygo Blaxell wrote:
Hmmm...consider the Wine project: a re-implementation of Microsoft DLL's
(among other things) using no Microsoft code. No code means no headers
as well--anything less would be copyright infringement.
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers,
14 matches
Mail list logo
