as a simple reply isn't sent to the list
- Forwarded message from Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:22:11 +0100
From: Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Aric Cyr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Joerg Mayer jmayer at loplof.de writes:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +, Aric Cyr wrote:
Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say,
although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not
directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +, Aric Cyr wrote:
Seeing that SpecOps Labs history of ignoring Wine developers extends for more
than a year, then yes I can agree with that.
Yup, there has been more silence than anything else.
According to their Partners' page, IBM and Turbolinux
It is not a requirement that patches be submitted - only that source code be
made available. Patches are normally submitted because it is more convenient
for the developer if the change is in the canonical version. If the developer
does not see the value of having their patch in the
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter...
So why no patches from SpecOps? should Wine move to GPL to keep from
being robbed of its code?
If your wondering why I'm ranting :
http://news.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1story_id=60585
Tom
On 12/20/05, Tom Wickline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your wondering why I'm ranting :
http://news.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1story_id=60585
http://www.specopslabs.com/projdav-framework.htm
Okay, can someone from SpecOps please send me a nice .bz2 of there changes?
Tom
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:24:40PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote:
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter...
So why no patches from SpecOps? should Wine move to GPL to keep from
being robbed of its code?
I would really like to see more than speculation on this product.
LGPL
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:24, Tom Wickline wrote:
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter...
So why no patches from SpecOps?
It is not a requirement that patches be submitted - only that source code be
made available. Patches are normally submitted because it is more
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 23:38 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:24:40PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote:
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter...
So why no patches from SpecOps? should Wine move to GPL to keep from
being robbed of its code?
I would
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:08, Jeremy White wrote:
In fact, the only person that can demand anything wrt the LGPL is
someone that is running their software. So if someone has bought
a copy of TurboLinux 11 in Japan, they have the right to demand
a copy of the source code to the Wine bits in
Troy Rollo wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:08, Jeremy White wrote:
In fact, the only person that can demand anything wrt the LGPL is
someone that is running their software. So if someone has bought
a copy of TurboLinux 11 in Japan, they have the right to demand
a copy of the source code to the
There is a review here : http://digital.hmx.net/02contents/pc/linux/fuji.shtml
You might need : http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate it.
I'll post parts of there review here
Ricoh TrueType font (JIS third fourth level support)
Japanese input software ATOK for Linux
Windows
Troy Rollo wine at troy.rollo.name writes:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:24, Tom Wickline wrote:
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter...
So why no patches from SpecOps?
It is not a requirement that patches be submitted - only that source code be
made available. Patches
On 12/20/05, Aric Cyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like there is hardly an issue here (provided they do as they say)...
move along, nothing to see here. :)
Your a trusting fellow I see.
You should look at this swamp land I have for sale, its guaranteed to perc. :D
Tom
- Aric
Tom Wickline twickline at gmail.com writes:
On 12/20/05, Aric Cyr Aric.Cyr at gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like there is hardly an issue here (provided they do as they
say)...
move along, nothing to see here. :)
Your a trusting fellow I see.
You should look at this swamp land I
Trusting perhaps, but not an over-reationist for sure. Has anyone approached
SpecObs Labs and asked for the code? Have they said no? This is all just
speculation and hardly worthy of a thread until such comes to pass. For a
company to (fairly) prominantely state on their product web page
Wine is LGPL as I understand it. Codeweavers takes advantage of that, as do
other companies I imagine (Transgaming?). What's one more company basing a
product on Wine code, provided they follow the license they agreed to when
they
received the code?
Give them a chance is all I am
Tim Schmidt timschmidt at gmail.com writes:
The SpecOps folks have been contacted before, search the archives. As
for Transgaming, they use a pre-LGPL fork of the Wine code, parts of
which they've released under the Aladin Public License, parts under a
BSD-like license, parts have never been
18 matches
Mail list logo
