I must have phrased that poorly. If so, I'd appreciate a proper
unambiguous wording.
Here is my intent:
I will allow you to take my code and use it as a module in another
program, *provided* that *entire* program is distributed as free (as
in speech) software (including full sources
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Ie it's okay to distribute it linked so something else that's
incompatible with the GPL for some lame reason, but not with
something that's incompatible with the GPL because it's not free or
doesn't include sources.
I seriously doubt whether
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If someone wants to distribute a proprietary module, let them
distribute it separately, and tell the user that it's there
responsibility to link it. Yes, it's a pain on the users, but if you
don't like it,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:17:22PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
This software is licensed under the GPL [... standard boilerplate.]
In addition to the distribution rights granted by the GPL, this
software may used as a module linked to other modules resulting in a
whole which
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
program, even if the entire program is not licensed under terms
compatible with the GPL, and the resulting work distributed,
*provided* that the composite work is distributed under
DFSG-compatible terms.
I do not think you really
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If someone wants to distribute a proprietary module, let them
distribute it separately, and tell the user that it's there
responsibility to link it. Yes, it's a pain on the users, but if you
don't like it, use the GPL.
I sometimes think the GPL might be
You all know the sort of problem: according to some people's
understanding of the GPL and copyright law, GPL software X cannot be
linked with GPL-incompatible software Y and then distributed even if X
and Y are separate works in separate packages.
Invent yet another licence? I hope not.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:02:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
No doubt some people approve of this, but I think there are a lot of
people who would prefer to apply a milder form of copyleft to their
programs. How should they do this?
I thought we had proposed a reasonably decent
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I thought we had proposed a reasonably decent paragraph to the KDE
people? Can't that be dusted off and used in different contexts?
Maybe. I haven't seen that paragraph.
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public Licence, if
this software
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free
extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst
abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered
an independent and separate work.
That just means that
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free
extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst
abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered
an
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That just means that someone can slap on somthing so that the code can
run standalone.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:39:24PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I intend the expression to mean rather more than just that.
Ok, so it needs work.
I could add some
12 matches
Mail list logo
