The GNU GPL says:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided
Martin Schulze wrote:
BUT: If we distribute scripts (shell, Perl, Python etc.) or PHP
files, that are patched before they are packed into a .deb file,
they normally don't contain such notices, even though the GPL seems
to require them, and we do distribute plain files in these cases.
In
From ignacio Fri Sep 6 11:56:41 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:41 +0200
Received: from shannon
([147.156.161.144] helo=localhost ident=ignacio)
by shannon with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id
We [CEINTEC] know that this person has never oposed to the use of Debian
and, of course, that person guarantees that this won't happen in the future
(while the GNU philosophy is respected).
I don't this this guarantee is worth the paper it's printed on.
We [CEINTEC] also know that he/she
Hello!
This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place
to ask this question, and failed.
I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program
from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out
to be really difficult.
I've been looking at the timidity-patches package, because I've been
looking for a decent MIDI patch set for an unrelated project, and that
patch set is a good one.
The package has no license.
Looking into it, timidity-patches turns out to have been put together
from patch files taken from the
On 20020906T180308+0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place
to ask this question, and failed.
The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for
licensing questions but I forget what it was.
That is my question. Who
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:52:06PM +0300 wrote:
The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for
licensing questions but I forget what it was.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Spencer Hal Visick
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:03, Fredrik Persson wrote:
Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with
Jim, I think it is. If the answer is Jill, it most likely is not.
So...
What do you all say about this?
I say that the answer is Jim, but that this is not as serious a
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Fredrik Persson wrote:
I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program
from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out
to be really difficult. Currently, I'm preparing a reply to their lawyer (I
have no legal training
On Wed, 4 Sep, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers Typesetting. Can you quote
the full copyright page, and give a general indication of the contents
of Volume E?
Somewhat surprisingly, no-one has done this completely yet. Computers
Typesetting, Volume E, Computer
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, use of the names is restricted:
This is a slightly odd statement, since (AFAIK) names cannot be
restricted in the ways that follow. The crucial issue seems to be
whether this statement (and what follows) are terms of the grant of
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
However, use of the names is restricted:
This is a slightly odd statement, since (AFAIK) names cannot be
restricted in the ways that follow. The crucial issue seems to be
whether this statement (and what follows)
On 2002-09-06 18:59:45 -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The names could only be restricted if they are trademarked, which they
are not. Computer Modern might be trademarked (I don't know),
It is, as indicated in the text I
14 matches
Mail list logo
