[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The only problem is when you start loading both GPL plugins and
GPL-incompatible plugins. Here, your license is irrelevant; it's the
plugin licenses that are in conflict. A permissive license shouldn't
add any new problems, at least.
There is a
It seems that the maintainer doesn't object too strongly about this.
The bug is 221761 and now titled Please remove elfutils from the
archive
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
In my particular case, a plugin must implement one or more predefined
interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
Yes,
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
under Section 2?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
--
Henning MakholmJeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my particular case, a plugin must implement one or more predefined
interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
Yes, assuming one of those implementation's
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
libraries, save ones with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Then read the section Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program? in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other interpretations of that section, please
enlighten me.
When we see a plugin
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible work,
we have two choices:
- Assume the author of the plugin was confused, and that the plugin
isn't even distributable, or
- Assume that the author intends that the plugin have an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want a simply answer, the answer is: No (insert disclaimers
here) as others have pointed out.
As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's distribution that's
restricted.
True as far as the GPL is
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Then read the section Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program? in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
work of the 'barnitz' plugin. Afe by itself of course isn't
a derivative, but someone who bundles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found it --
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror doesn't
link against OpenSSL. It runs a separate process (kcm_crypto, it
looks like), which links against openssl... but does so in a way that
*doesn't* invoke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:20:16AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:44:13AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
at all.
And that (together with the intention of
8-Dec-03 11:15 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
under Section 2?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
I can't get rid of the thought that there is
19 matches
Mail list logo
