On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote:
> > > 2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
> > > against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
> > > libraries (.a) it links against.
> >
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote:
> > 2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
> > against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
> > libraries (.a) it links against.
>
> Sure you can!
>
> Note that although the Free
> Here's my set of questions:
>
> 2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
> against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
> libraries (.a) it links against.
Sure you can!
Note that although the Free Software Foundation may say that a 4-claus
Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
Hi Robert,
I am not the ideal person to give you an answer about licensing.
However, I remember that for Berkeley DB ht://Dig has a special license
(db/LICENSE), which allows version 3.0.55 (patched) to be distributed
along with ht://Dig (and only with it).
It is an "a
Hi Robert,
I am not the ideal person to give you an answer about licensing.
However, I remember that for Berkeley DB ht://Dig has a special license
(db/LICENSE), which allows version 3.0.55 (patched) to be distributed
along with ht://Dig (and only with it).
It is an "ad-hoc" and special lic
Hello List,
I am in the process of making my package ('htdig') lintian-clean. Part
of that cleanness (lintian does not complain about) is getting a summary
of all the licenses used into the copyright file.
My situation is as follows (for htdig 3.1.6):
htdig itself is GPL, more recent versions ar
