On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 04:16:56AM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
My first though on this particular case was this: compilers, free or
non-free, are used to compile source code that can be under any license
of choice by its copyright holder. Users of a compiler do not want
their choice of
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 04:16:56AM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
My first though on this particular case was this: compilers, free or
non-free, are used to compile source code that can be under any license
of choice by its
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:45:57AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Err, my understanding was that anything is compatible with the GPL, but that
the GPL just stops you from distributing it without complying with the GPL,
i
am right with it ?
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: none [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:01:25
John Galt wrote:
Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
Debian FAQ sometime. They'll give you two
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
Debian
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 04:16:56AM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
But check out this gem that I stumbled upon:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/components/activex/licensing.asp?frame=true
This page should be submitted verbatim both to usenet on next april fools
and to the microsoft
7 matches
Mail list logo
