Just noticed a comment in the Linux Kernel summary at
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20030627_220.html#4 : It appears the
Linux kernel devs are avoiding the GFDL.
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for executable works, we have things like For an executable
work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules
it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the
scripts used to control compilation and
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true that the GPL wording implies that there is a single
preferred form,
Yep. The GPL was designed for compiled programs, and it shows in
several places.
The relation between a xcf and a gif is precisely one of compilation.
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the author had accepted patches from others to version 1, he would be
stuck with keeping later versions under the GPL unless he got a licence
change OK'd by each of the contributors, or removed the contributed code.
However, check the licence on the
On 2003-06-30 11:44:06 +0200, Baptiste SIMON wrote:
we are in this situation... and I want to prevent changin license by
holder of the copyright. So I'm looking for a solution, giving the
copyright to something, under some terms, etc...
Is there any solution ?
AFAIK No. Under european law
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of
this discussion?
I think Branden published a proposed summary, which provoked some
discussion. I believe we are
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true that the GPL wording implies that there is a single
preferred form,
Yep. The GPL was designed for compiled programs, and it shows in
several places.
The relation between a xcf and a gif is precisely one
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:17:55PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of
this discussion?
I think Branden published a
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the author had accepted patches from others to version 1, he would be
stuck with keeping later versions under the GPL unless he got a licence
change OK'd by each of the contributors, or removed the
Branden Robinson wrote:
Argh, I gotta stop here (legalese fatigue, and yes, I know I do more
than my share of causing it in others). I will follow-up soon with my
comments on the remaining two major sections.
I hope you find the above analysis useful.
most likely from brief scanning ---
10 matches
Mail list logo
