Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Every package must specify the dependency information about other
packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
Emulators do not work correctly without software to emulate.
If there is no software, then by
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:16:51 -0400 Lex Spoon wrote:
First, the GPL states explicitly that you must accept the terms or
that you do not get permission to do anything with the code. Should
we argue with a statement that the text says itself?
Wait, quoting from GPL#0:
| Activities other than
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:44:42 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about
whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in
action a few times, I feel that they are doing more harm than good
because they always seem to include
Is it possible for an upstream to change license from a BSD-old to GPL?
Consider the hypothesis that the product is a derivative work with a
few old contributors. I see no reasons to do not relicense after adding
a credits note as required in the BSD license.
Comments?
--
Francesco P.
Francesco P. Lovergine writes:
Is it possible for an upstream to change license from a BSD-old to GPL?
Consider the hypothesis that the product is a derivative work with a
few old contributors. I see no reasons to do not relicense after adding
a credits note as required in the BSD license.
On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful.
Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they're
being done, now we've seen them in action for a while.
There seem to be two types of
On 2004-06-24 11:27:15 +0100 Francesco P. Lovergine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible for an upstream to change license from a BSD-old to
GPL?
Consider the hypothesis that the product is a derivative work with a
few old
contributors. I see no reasons to do not relicense after adding
a
On Jun 20, 2004, at 21:20, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Ok, just to see, I did a diff on any files that looked like they might
have been derived from the other... none of them matched a SINGLE LINE
OF CODE, except for silly things like opening/closing braces and a
couple of #include lines, and a
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that you
perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
Actually, as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
|
| If upstream is still active, please ask him about that. There might be a
| reason for the license still being there; if not, it'd be best if he
| removed it.
|
|
I just sent this upstream:
| On your page you have the
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:19:36PM +0100,:
I am glad that Mahesh has replied. I have noticed use of the
debian-legal MPL discussion to justify condemnation of the term free
software in messages to fsug-kochi-discuss.
I was wondering about this, till I re-read what I wrote on
11 matches
Mail list logo
