or such.
I'll keep watch on this and see what chaos is coming.
Thanks for the opinions, though. I have my own lawyers I can ask but I don't
want to keep making them do freebies for me with regards to consulting.
Thomas
he opinion of debian-legal on whether there's
any copyright or trademark violation concerns that exist before I pursue
getting this into Debian?
Thomas Ward
Debian Maintainer for multiple packages
Ubuntu Core Developer
[1]:
https://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx/202
Le 2018-06-13 13:30, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Florian Weimer writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for
some build configuration, DFSG ok?"):
Thomas Preud'homme:
> The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are:
>
> - Is a non-ultimate buil
Hi,
Thank you Ian and Dmitry for the feedback,
On lundi 19 février 2018 15:07:18 GMT Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thomas Preud'homme writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for
some build configuration, DFSG ok?"):
> > The questions I was asking in the original
r
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it."
>
> More questions follow.
>
> Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudho...@celest.fr> writes:
> > ultracopier's source code has a license check when built in ultimate
> > mode. However the source code is readily avail
web browser which download
and run proprietary javascripts without any warning.
So unless someone point me a clear justification I will close this bug
as invalid for now.
Regards,
Thomas Pierson
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
As far as I understand it, in Germany, for a text / recording / drawing
to be a criminal matter, it must depict actual abuse – meaning a child
has to be abused for the document to be created.
That's not quite correct.
Accoding to German law, it's a misdemeanour to
confirm?
Anyway, thanks a lot Bastien for your help on how to find more information in
Paris. Although I didn't try it yet, your help was really appreciated.
Best regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
still in research for a few more
month. I'll look into it.
Thanks again for the help.
Best regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
, what is for sure, is that it makes it more
difficult than a normal, unmodified, AGPL license. Would you consider
removing such AGPL add-on? I don't think it's needed to protect your
trademark. Look at the BSD-3-clause license, for a good example of
clauses doing so.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo
Le mardi 20 mars 2012 05:55:19, vous avez écrit :
[SNIP]
Is it supposed to be the preferred form for the author. If it's the
user then it gets a bit complicated because it could vary from one
user to another.
Theoretically, it can vary. But in most cases it should be clear. For
PNG
Le mardi 20 mars 2012 14:39:14, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
In this case of course. But I checked quickly in oxygen-icons package and I
didn't see a rule to construct the png from the svg (although I could just
have missed it). It's just that there is a SVG with the same image as the
png
Le mardi 20 mars 2012 22:54:34, Ben Finney a écrit :
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr writes:
Le mardi 20 mars 2012 14:39:14, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
But I checked quickly in oxygen-icons package and I didn't see a
rule to construct the png from the svg (although I could just
-icon-theme, the source
for the image will still be in the archive. Also, this allow all the sources
to be in the source package.
Best regards,
Thomas Preud'homme
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
server, the Corresponding Source may be on a
different server).
Thanks for taking the time to read thus far. I'm waiting your answer to
enlighten me as to what I should do to respect all the license and DFSG
requirements.
Best regards,
Thomas Preud'homme
signature.asc
Description
is required. - Is my interpretation correct that this means RFCs can not
be modified and redistributed and thus are not DFSG-free?
(Please CC me in replies.)
Thank you,
Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe
an ideal answer would be just a template section I could copy and paste in
my debian/copyright!
Thank you,
Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro
Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/copyright-format/1.0
Upstream-Name: sbinary
Source: https://github.com/harrah/sbinary
Upstream-Contact:
Mark Harrah dmhar
are compatible with debian's policy and
*dreaming*
it would make it into debian lenny and a half ;)
*end dreaming*
greetings
thomas
Am 04.01.2009 17:48, schrieb Kern Sibbald:
Hello,
The current released version (2.4.x) series under an interpretation that
OpenSSL is not a system library routine
?
greetings
thomas
- --
# Thomas Stegbauer
https://keyserver1.pgp.com/vkd/submitsearch.event?searchcriteria=tho...@stegbauer.info
# PGP Fingerprint: C5B5 BDBD 6607 A9DF E545 0EC5 9DDF 9749 BD05 808A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http
On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote:
Firstly, -curiosa is the wrong list for your post, see the description here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-curiosa/
Ooops... I expected unexpected things, not funny ones, sorry!
I suppose a better place had been debian-desktop.
Anyway, as the content have
provided an example which
isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can
provide such an example, there's something to discuss.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of example are you looking for?
The example that you failed to provide in the posting to which I responded.
(let's not get sidetracked)
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
that it forbids others ;-)
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who contribute to this thread.
regards.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has to say
about this clause and its interpretation.
sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
and depending on the context will contradict themselves.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http
, it seems extremely likely
that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed
in Belgium. Additionally, you might want to check European law for similar
agreements (which would mean that the jurisdiction of your immediate concern
spans 20 countries).
Thomas
serious, because
the federal constitution *compels* states to give effect to each other's
court judgments.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to
ORB)
A DFSG-free non-recent Java ORB is maybe better than a non-free
more-recent one.
I'm looking into this.
Thanks,
Thomas
[1] http://www.opengroup.org/certification/corba-home.html
[2] http://www.opengroup.org/press/7jun99_a.htm
[3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2005-03
is on 2.5. That would mean lowering
CORBA compliance but would give us a DFSG-free Java ORB)
Thanks,
Thomas
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=349540
[2] ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ptc/02-01-02.zip
[3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2004-12/msg00083.html
[4] http
I'm trying to find out whether I can use code from the glibc info
documentation in a GPLed project (I'm trying to make a feature fix for
xvnc4viewer). I can't seem to find any information about this either in
the documentation itself, or in the archives of glibc-bugs or
debian-legal, or Google
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 02:47 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the GPL, section 0:
The act of running the Program is not restricted...
And since dynamic linking is done at the time
.
This will just add another twist to it.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would be similar in spirit to the present version, see
GPLv2, section 9.) and greatly weakens the copyleft.
true - since it is against the spirit of GPLv2 it automatically makes it
impossible to invoke the remainder of section 9 (you have the option...).
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
I am very glad that I can avoid, thank you
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
likely, then SPI could be liable.
Oh, very good point. I hadn't thought
).
Questions:
- is it valid to refer to GPL and add such severe restrictions in
an appendix?
- is this a free software license in the FSF definition?
- is this license free enough to allow an inclusion of the software
into debian?
Regards,
Thomas Esser
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
facts.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
options.
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation instead, I must
instead simply not transmit the document *at all* if I am stuck with
an ASCII-only medium.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
,
then it immediately becomes relevant whether a given modification is
useful, and whether that modification is prohibited.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
can distribute it. What you cannot do is *modify* it in
a particular way (or rather, any way at all). The DFSG requires the
right to *modify*.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use of the word bullshit.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of a Japanese manual, if the Japanese
version...
Oh, never mind. Craig is not listening, he's just vomiting words out
his mouth. Sorry.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
--
Thomas Huriaux
---BeginMessage---
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:02:08PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote:
Do you still have a copy of this spam, so that I can forward it to
debian-legal?
yes:
(because of the `linkedin' stuff, I thought first they had me on linked
in, and they replied
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
I think this is an awful reason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
non-computer-program which we have too much of?
No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
can't distribute them to me.
Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.
Debian does not want what? To distribute them? Hogwash. I'd be
happy to upload them.
--
To
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
related to programs in Debian.
You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
management, the NM process, dealing
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in any form is not wanted.
Of course this webpage is already copyrighted by SPI, but I'm wondering
if the potential note would comply with the license of the website or if
there is any other problem/solution.
Please Cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Thomas Huriaux
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
such a patent. Is that
correct?
I would say that the current situation neither permits pure alghritms to
be patented. Have you time and money to prove that through a trial?
;-)
thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
purposes, it's even more irrelevant. Our
standing policy is that if there is doubt about the force or intention
of a license, we err on the side of simply doing what the licensor
demands.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
ourselves? (Or, if we are
not, then why is this relevant?)
Thomas
P
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, and if the rider is not granted, stop distributing
(which we would do anyway).
So this is a tempest in a silly teapot. I'm happy to leave the thread
here, since the upshot is a no-relevance-to-important-issues.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
that last sentence, please re-read it.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FAQ is not merely an interesting commentary -- it is the
published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
that he can have no reasonable basis under the law
to be: a
license?
There is a thing you are not considering: it is a unilateral grant of
conditional permission. This is a perfectly well-traveled area of
law.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are not intended for software, thus the DFSG are irrelevant.
Then they will read
[...]
I am not representative of CC in any form, but I confirm what Francesco
says.
Me and him had the same discussion some mail before. ;-)
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
this is necessary to fix the software-different-meaning-issue.
thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi Thomas!
ciao Franceso
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
[...]
The main point you seem to miss
Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:15:23AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I think most of those are just aggregation on a medium of
distribution. Only the tree of dependencies has to be checked.
So what you're saying is that Depends: java2-runtime is fine
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Fortunately, the sentence beginning A program using... is not
relevant to my argument. I'm not talking about derivative works. I'm
talking
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
software. They aren't on a plane with the original author
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not
believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing interepter
features and see what would be the consequences.
An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to the
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
software. They aren't on a plane with the original author
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program.
Eclipse+Kaffe contains Kaffe
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not
believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing interepter
features and see what would be the consequences.
An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
on my computer is mechanical, so we should
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
been discussing (I already said it in
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These facilities include class loading, class instantiation,
synchronization, garbage collection (ie. you can trigger GC from within
your program), reflection (ie. you can ask VM what are methods that
this class have?).
Those are features of
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
You are ignoring
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
libraries, included whichever
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time
It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
requirement.
While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does
not.
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
To: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:35:31 -0800
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
been discussing (I already said it in
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
You are ignoring the
creative act performed by the programmer who arranged calls to
functions within libc
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
(c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
other people's designs as original clip art.
It is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
(c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
other people's designs as original clip art.
It is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of
1 - 100 of 1615 matches
Mail list logo
