FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO !
(se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma,
leggetelo
..)
Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet?
Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla
a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a
GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause). So this is
not a problem unless they try to link gcc against something that has not=20
had the licensing clause removed, such
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for the
purpose of the GPL's 'system library' exception, in both spirit and
letter, but I would hate to get bitten
FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO !
(se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma,
leggetelo
..)
Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet?
Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla
a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for the
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The system-library exception expressly only applies unless that
component accompanies the executable. Traditionally we hold it to count
as accompanying when the library as well as the
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
The system-library exception expressly only applies unless that
component accompanies the executable. Traditionally we hold it to
count as accompanying when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
appears in Debian's main archive. I've argued that this is
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The system-library exception expressly only applies unless that
component accompanies the executable. Traditionally we
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
The system-library exception expressly only applies unless that
component accompanies the executable. Traditionally we hold it to
count as accompanying when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
appears in
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
Which part of unless that component itself accompanies the
executable
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, sorry for being slow, but what is a 4-clause BSD license? One
that has positive as well as negative advertising clauses?
After ~50 MB of downloads: Yes, that's what it is. A representative
example from usr/src/lib/libc/gen/lockf.c in the NetBSD
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
zeroth clause?
Take a look at http://www.closedbsd.org/pub/COPYRIGHT for an example.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
What is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html has an example of the clause in
question.
The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
is the
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:07:47PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The system-library exception expressly only applies unless
Hello, Apostrophe.
(I maintain all our previous words to help understand the new readers.
Please excuse me the other readers).
I am very aware of the lack of quality fonts in the open source
community. In fact, over the past year or so I have been looking at
different options of helping the
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:05:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The system-library exception expressly only applies unless that
component accompanies the executable. Traditionally we hold it to
count as accompanying when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
appears in Debian's main
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This interpretation does seem to have the side effect of rendering
NetBSD's distribution of gcc (for instance), uhm, interesting.
It would seem so, but it's not easy for to find the
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 14:44, Henning Makholm wrote:
The mind boggles. How does one abide with (3) without breaking (4)?
The notice in (3) is a statement of fact, not an endorsement.
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
Which part of unless that
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:47:37PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
Blah, hit the wrong key in lisa. You're recommending a non-free
package (graphviz) which violates policy (2.1). Either it needs to be
a suggestion or the package belongs in contrib.
Ah yes thanks for that. When I first built the
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:03:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Has anyone actually asked RMS what his intention here was?
I don't know, but I can think of no other way to make sense of the
unless part. See my full reasoning in the list archives at
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is
Hello,
I'm maintainer of the Courier packages. The upstream source
is copylefted by GPL. Parts of it link against OpenSSL.
I saw some messages that stated these licenses are incompatible.
However, I read in the Open-SSL FAQ:
On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
zeroth clause?
Holy cow, your are powerfully ignorant.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:44:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
*must display the following acknowledgement:
*This product includes software developed by the NetBSD
*Foundation, Inc. and its
Pedro Reina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all the three examples, we arise the same point: the license of
your team work is great, but is not 100% compatible with our
guidelines about free software. And I think, my friend, that we all
think pretty much the same way about what freedom must
I do have a few concerns however, and hopefully you and your
free software associates would be able to help me reach a solution for
proper licensing of whatever I want to donate to the community.
[...]
My only concern with making any lab fonts public domain is the
possibility of people
Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On my fifth reading of the licence I don't think the copyright assignment
is actually an issue, but I did initially:
3.The Mobile Mesh software is covered by the GNU General Public
License (Version 2). If you transmit source code improvements or
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
I'm maintainer of the Courier packages. The upstream source
is copylefted by GPL. Parts of it link against OpenSSL.
I saw some messages that stated these licenses are incompatible.
However, I read in the Open-SSL FAQ:
snip
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 07:46:45AM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
On my fifth reading of the licence I don't think the copyright assignment
is actually an issue, but I did initially:
3.The Mobile Mesh software is covered by the GNU General Public
License (Version 2). If you transmit source
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:58:46PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
I asked the upstream author and he told me that he has certainly no
problem with linking Courier against OpenSSL. He won't make the
mentioned exemption, because
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
zeroth clause?
Holy cow, your are
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do we know for a fact that:
a) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD folks ships gcc with their operating
system,
b) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD code that gcc links against is still
old-style BSD,
c) the FSF has *explicitly stated* that
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:05:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Debian has simply refrained from distributing some programs which had
code covered by the GPL yet linked to Qt at a time where
38 matches
Mail list logo
