Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
and go from there.
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure I understand the significance of the difference here and what
issue I am confusing - perhaps you can enlighten me on your position.
Copyright infringement may occur whether you fail to comply with a license
or whether you breach a contract. Last I
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Lbh'er zhqqyvat nccyrf naq benatrf. Urer gur pbheg vf gnyxvat nobhg
gur serr fcrrpu orvat vgfrys n pbclevtug npg bs fcrrpu.
Could somebody please explain the joke? Why is this rot13'd?
No
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This causes no problem, because the QPL is not incompatible with the LGPL,
but it is with the GPL. So there is no possibility to link it with
libreadline, isn't it ?
You are correct: such a combination is not allowed if the licenses are
incompatible.
As
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:33:31PM -0400, none wrote:
My difficulty with this argument is that an owner of the copy of the
GPL library has a wide right to make a derivative work on the owner's
computer by virtue of the GPL and/or a more limited right in the U.S.
by virtue of section 117 of the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
and go from there.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
If, as he claims, there's merit
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:29:35PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
The real problem is that it is a pain for the user to use a toplevel
interpreter without propper input history support. The authors couldn't care
less, and don't want (yet) to release the few files from the toplevel
interpreter
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:29:35PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
The real problem is that it is a pain for the user to use a toplevel
interpreter without propper input history support. The authors couldn't care
less, and don't
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:46:50PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
Why not use libeditline instead? It's source-code compatible with the basic
features of readline and has a BSD (sans ad clause) type license.
Ok didn't know
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:46:50PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
Why not use libeditline instead? It's source-code compatible with the
basic
features of
On 21 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
At the same time, it is wise to bend over backwards to
make clear that one is disclaiming any implied warranty that might
exist.
This depends which nation's law you are under. As I understood German law,
any clause if at a whole void, that disclaims
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
and go from there.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I
would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
In Harper
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian
GNU/Linux.
No, we're not.
To see the difference, compare this to
Debian GNU/Linux -- This product includes software developed by the Apache
Group for use in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 22 June 2001 10:28 pm, John Galt wrote:
Chloe Hoffman snipped: no attributed text, no need for CC
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Debian's already doing this to some
My difficulty with this argument is that an owner of the copy of the GPL
library has a wide right to make a derivative work on the owner's computer
by virtue of the GPL and/or a more limited right in the U.S. by virtue of
section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
In the scenario we
16 matches
Mail list logo
