O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
> > What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
> A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
> not present in the GPL.
In my latest message I didn't really say what I really mea
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
> > What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
> A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
> not present in the GPL.
In my latest message I didn't really say what I really mea
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > You can always link GPL material with non-GPL material, so long as that
> > other work is GPL-compatible.
>
> What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is GPL-compatible if it can be converted to the GPL.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
> > 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
> > mostly-minor differences
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 12:42:57 -0500, Justin Pryzby escribía:
> What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
not present in the GPL.
Interpretation: when you join (by linking) a GPLed work with an
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > available under the GPL.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
> 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
> mostly-minor differences (some bugfixes, I think, and some changes
> that the IRAF group made).
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > available under the GPL.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
> GPL? IRAF is not a "deriv
DISregard for a moment that IRAF seems to include code from a nonfree
yacc.
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
GPL? IRAF is not a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:42:57PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > You can always link GPL material with non-GPL material, so long as that
> > other work is GPL-compatible.
>
> What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is GPL-compatible if it can be converted to the GPL.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
> > 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
> > mostly-minor differences
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 12:42:57 -0500, Justin Pryzby escribía:
> What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute?
A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction
not present in the GPL.
Interpretation: when you join (by linking) a GPLed work with an
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > available under the GPL.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
> 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
> mostly-minor differences (some bugfixes, I think, and some changes
> that the IRAF group made).
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > available under the GPL.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
> GPL? IRAF is not a "deriv
DISregard for a moment that IRAF seems to include code from a nonfree
yacc.
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
GPL? IRAF is not a
18 matches
Mail list logo
