On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 11:57:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 03:15:40AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
I suggest that the virality clause be limited, not removed, and
/allow/ including GPLed software in non-GPLd software as long as all
the non-GPLd parts of the program are
Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Feb 17, Andreas Pour wrote:
[...]
I don't see why, after you've gone to such pains to establish that the
on a module license doesn't change when a module is linked with a GPLed
program. Why have you decided that this is a necessary step for this
case?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:45:15AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
I was only using what I perceived to be the most common way to mean a
license restriction that requires all code linked to or from a certain
program to be licensed under the same license as the program. In THAT
sense most proprietary
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer
to this License, so
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer
On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 05:23:43PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 03:15:40AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
It appears that the easiest way to solve many license incompatibility
problems involving the GPL and other free licenses would be to add a
new version of the GPL, since
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer
to this
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:19:08AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
There was a reason why the FSF recommended allowing users to apply
future versions of the GPL, and this is exactly it. It's a safety
valve for use in case when the world changes and the old version of
the GPL is no longer as good.
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:04:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:45:15AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
I was only using what I perceived to be the most common way to mean a
license restriction that requires all code linked to or from a certain
program to be licensed under
Moving to Debian-Legal...
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:49PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
I've been having a conversation with the
upstream authors of VICE, and they believe that the rights to those
firmware ROMs have been released.
Released? By whom? And how? Copyright law is usually very
Adi Stav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then WHY did the FSF approve the QPL? Harmony was already on its
way...
Since when does the FSF approve of the QPL? The GNU webpage at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
says the following:
The Qt Public License (QPL).
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:35:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:19:08AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
There was a reason why the FSF recommended allowing users to apply
future versions of the GPL, and this is exactly it. It's a safety
valve for use in case when the world
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:38:26PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Adi Stav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then WHY did the FSF approve the QPL? Harmony was already on its
way...
Since when does the FSF approve of the QPL? The GNU webpage at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:13:44PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:36:05PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
Moving to Debian-Legal...
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:49PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
I've been having a conversation with the
upstream authors of VICE, and they
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:35:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[I don't expect it's reasonable for the GPL to]
change in a fashion where modifications to a part of a program can't be
distributed under the GPL.
Nor do I expect it's reasonable to expect the GPL to change in a fashion
which
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:31:01PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
IIRC, ceasing to exist just takes the copyrights with you, and no one
has the right to use them. (All at once, We love the copyright laws!
We love the copyright laws! (-: )
Hmm.. This is an interesting situation. I don't think
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:04:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[discussing the concept that some people call viral]
I think you're referring to the GPL property I think of as transitive
rights. [As in transitive closure, not transitive verb.]
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:34:47AM +0200, Adi Stav
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:13:44PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:36:05PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
Moving to Debian-Legal...
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:49PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
I've been having a conversation
Raul Miller wrote:
You've been implying that the irreversible change mentioned in Section
3 is a requirement for cases where libc is used as a Library.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Well, it seems you misquoting me is becoming an annoying ritual. What
I said
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:40:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:35:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[I don't expect it's reasonable for the GPL to]
change in a fashion where modifications to a part of a program can't be
distributed under the GPL.
Nor do I
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:07:27PM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
QPLed code can't be distributed under the GPL. Code which is linked
into the program is part of the program. What part of that don't you
understand?
I can't see how it would allow Troll to re-release GPL code under the
QPL, or
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
OK, perhaps we are making progress after all. It appears that you have
now abandoned the argument that Qt itself must be licensed under the
GPL. So if that is true, all you require is that the collective work
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:31:01PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
IIRC, ceasing to exist just takes the copyrights with you, and no one
has the right to use them. (All at once, We love the copyright laws!
We love the copyright laws! (-: )
Copyright is property just like anything else, and it is
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:01:49AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:04:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[discussing the concept that some people call viral]
I think you're referring to the GPL property I think of as transitive
rights. [As in transitive closure, not
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
OK, perhaps we are making progress after all. It appears that you have
now abandoned the argument that Qt itself must be licensed under the
GPL. So if that is true, all you require is that the collective work
in
We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software
- making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but
exempting commercial software providers from this requirement.
I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL
software.
That's because code reuse wasn't seen as a relevant issue for
building a distribution. The DFSG is simply an attempt to define our
minimal requirements to maintain a piece of software as a part of our
distribution.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:25:53PM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
I thought the
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 04:47:10PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software
- making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but
exempting commercial software providers from this requirement.
Note that the
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 03:39:47PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
I'm asking a very straight-forward question: if you link a dynamic
library to a GPL Program, does the source code of the library have to
be licensed under the GPL? I think you are really waffling on
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
Note that the UCITA is not law, and there's a lot of people who think it
would be a bad idea for it to be made law (attorney generals of about half
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:33:04PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
But there are a lot of people that
31 matches
Mail list logo
