Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

2006-01-03 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the Fortunately, most people disagree. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

2006-01-03 Thread Matthew Garrett
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the

Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

2006-01-03 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:45:29AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: If it was meant to include compiler-like tools, it would say the compiler used to build the executable, but it clearly avoids that. If this was true then the next sentence would not say this: However, as a special

Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

2006-01-03 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the Fortunately, most people disagree. The lurkers support me in email They all think I'm great don't you know. You posters just don't understand

Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

2006-01-03 Thread Matthew Garrett
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the Fortunately, most people disagree. The lurkers support me in email While I won't actually try to use

Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

2006-01-03 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:08:03PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the QPL is not a free license (although the Fortunately, most people disagree.

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

2006-01-03 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Anthony Towns wrote: (2.1) Invariant Sections The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the DFSG, which states:

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

2006-01-03 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Ian Jackson wrote: Also, (4) How can this be fixed? This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence GDFL/GPL. The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license as the