On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
That makes it a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
That makes it a
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that
NeXTStep distributed only the object files
It's in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by RMS,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
Consider GNU
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is
entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable
entity.
Nope, it's not. But since you don't listen, it's pointless to keep
talking to you.
--
To
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work
5 matches
Mail list logo
