(My question is not Debian-related, but I figured the people who know
the answer read this list.)
The usual interpretation (seen in the list archives) of the MIT/expat
license seems to be the that the copyright notice needs to be retained
in the source but does not have to be displayed by
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
I think. But if you can take out his code (and any other that's
GPLv2 only),
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such language is fine as long as the copyright holder and the license
author are the same entity. New versions of the license are likely to
reflect changes in the opinions of the authors, and they have every
right to make provisions for a modified
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use of
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
I think. But if you can take out his
Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can
Humberto Massa wrote:
Everything that is not completely independent and extractable and beyond
any doubt non-historically-derived of Linus code is a derivative work
and, as such, can only be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2.
You're correct in that anything that's a derivative work of
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
You're correct in that anything that's a derivative work of any
GPLv2 code also cannot be distributed under GPLv3 or later. But
it's going to be very interesting to figure out what code is
a derivative work of what.
Anyway, this seems rather theoretical.
Arnoud
Yeah,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:47:16AM -0500, Pascal Giard wrote:
There's no way you can use xbgm# if you haven't modchipped or softmodded
your xbox.
So... what do you think?
Well, there's no problem with copyright or freeness here. But we
probably shouldn't distribute this in the US (at least
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:24:24AM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
(My question is not Debian-related, but I figured the people who know
the answer read this list.)
The usual interpretation (seen in the list archives) of the MIT/expat
license seems to be the that the copyright notice needs to
Kuno Woudt wrote:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:24:24AM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
(My question is not Debian-related, but I figured the people who know
the answer read this list.)
The usual interpretation (seen in the list archives) of the MIT/expat
license seems
Henning Makholm wrote:
The word linking (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the
GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment:
| If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more
| useful to permit linking proprietary applications
| with the library. If
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:29:36 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
There's a more significant problem: if you say or later, and you
don't like GPLv3--either because it allows things you don't like, or
(as recent events suggest may be more likely) includes restrictions
you don't like, people can take
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:53:35 + Gervase Markham wrote:
[about the don't remove get_source feature]
- The requirement to not remove certain particular code is probably
non-free;
I don't think it's forbidding to remove the code: it's merely forbidding
to drop a feature.
You could
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:14:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
There havn't been any such bugs, though, fortunately. Some people
don't like the PHP loophole or whatever you want to call it, but I
don't believe that's fixable in a free license,
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please elaborate on the PHP loophole? I've never heard of
it: what do you mean by that?
It's the whole web-as-platform idea. Let's say I take a copy of latex
(assuming for the moment that it were GPL, which it isn't IIRC), and I
enhance it
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:53:35PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
Kuno Woudt wrote:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please elaborate on the PHP loophole? I've never heard of
it: what do you mean by that?
It's the whole web-as-platform idea.
This is commonly refered to as the ASP[1] loophole not the PHP
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:02PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
There is no single the community, sharing a single opinion on
freedom. There are many different views out there, and some recent
moves from FSF have been in a direction away from a large enough
number of people, with loud enough
Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
about how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out
to be accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far
Kuno Woudt wrote:
Can you be specific on which licenses you think attempt to deal with
this problem? So far I only know of the Affero GPL, which I already
mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and I am curious how other license
authors have attempted to fix this problem.
Larry Rosen's Open
On Mar 15, 2005, at 03:24, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
about
how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out to be
accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so
23 matches
Mail list logo
