Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:27:41PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: (from http://www.debian.org/social_contract) # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:27:41PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: (from http://www.debian.org/social_contract) # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Then it should be stated clearly in the DFSG. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cesar Eduardo Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Something odd is going on. GPL'ed programs are free (according to the DFSG), but the GPL itself is not? The freeness of the GPL itself is irrelevant. The FSF does not want people messing with the GPL and making it broken in some way and calling it the GPL. This will confuse licensees and make the FSF look bad. As the GPL itself is not software it does not need to fall under the DFSG. In other words, the DFSG only requires that the license allow derived works of the software it covers. It doesn't require that the license allow derived works of itself. Not that the FSF seems to care, as the Artistic license claims to be a kindler, gentler version of the GPL, and nobody has objected (presumably because the Artistic license doesn't claim to *be* the GPL).
Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 02:38:21AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: Just curious, is Corel in a position to buy TT or Qt outright? If they did that, Qt would become BSDish licensed. This would make hte XFree people happy. ; It would also SOLVE the license problem. It would however destroy the ability to reasonably profit from Qt, something simply GPLing it wouldn't do. I wouldn't hold my breath regarding convincing someone at Troll Tech that they should actually GPL it or even try to make the current license GPL compatible. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux developer GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE -- zpx it's amazing how not-broken debian is compared to slack and rh pgpksQCfsi2px.pgp Description: PGP signature
