Arno Lehmann a écrit :
Phil Stracchino wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
If we want, we could implement a donor only list where subscription
would be conditional on making a donation or being a Bacula support
provider. For such a list to work, I'll need Bacula support
providers. This is just a t
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 08:35:38 +0200, Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Kern> On Saturday 27 August 2005 00:20, Arno Lehmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Martin Simmons wrote:
>> > E.g. suppose you have written a non-trivial non-GPL data analysis tool
>> > with plugins for different i
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Hendrik Weimer wrote:
Companies which are totally risk-averse may decide to compile static
images using proprietary libraries and compilers, at extra cost, but
they retain 100% of their copyright even if having to pay distribution
license royalties to Borland or Intel or who
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Martin Simmons wrote:
Alan> Proprietary code including lesser GPL (lGPL) libraries is not forced into
Alan> the GPL either.
Quite correct, but isn't there a common problem is that something is GPL but
you want to use a small part of it as a library?
If the libraries are
Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> HOWEVER, proprietary code sitting on top of the GPL code was not
> forced into GPL, even by vector of including standard libraries (If
> someone really doesn't want to risk it they can always go out and buy
> Intel's CC instead of usding GCC, etc. The Intel
Phil Stracchino wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
If we want, we could implement a donor only list where subscription would be
conditional on making a donation or being a Bacula support provider. For such
a list to work, I'll need Bacula support providers. This is just a thought.
In fact, it woul
On Saturday 27 August 2005 00:20, Arno Lehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Martin Simmons wrote:
> > E.g. suppose you have written a non-trivial non-GPL data analysis tool
> > with plugins for different input formats. Now if you want to add a
> > plugin for Bacula volumes, but you won't be able to use any of
Hi,
Martin Simmons wrote:
E.g. suppose you have written a non-trivial non-GPL data analysis tool with
plugins for different input formats. Now if you want to add a plugin for
Bacula volumes, but you won't be able to use any of the Bacula volume reading
code because it will taint your whole too
On Friday 26 August 2005 21:22, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > If we want, we could implement a donor only list where subscription would
> > be conditional on making a donation or being a Bacula support provider.
> > For such a list to work, I'll need Bacula support providers. Th
Kern Sibbald said:
> On Thursday 25 August 2005 23:38, Neil Schneider wrote:
>> Kern Sibbald said:
>> > Although BSD and other licenses are free for commercial users, I
>> > wouldn't say
>> > that is the case for GPL. For a commercial software company as
>> > opposed to a
>> > service company, GP
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> If we want, we could implement a donor only list where subscription would be
> conditional on making a donation or being a Bacula support provider. For such
> a list to work, I'll need Bacula support providers. This is just a thought.
> In fact, it wouldn't require any mo
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:49:40 +0100 (BST), Alan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Alan> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> Even the cases above, what's happened is that the companies concerned have
>>> been forced to release the sourcecode for modifications to GCC,
>>>
Hello,
After all the feedback and discussions, I think I have a clearer idea of what
I would like to try. The basic outline is as follows:
- Both the source and the binaries will remain under the modified GPL license
that Bacula now uses.
- The source and binary licenses will be separated.
- I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kern Sibbald wrote:
| I had to modify the Bacula GPL license to be acceptable to Debian (I'm
not in
| the least complaining as I respect their position). This was because
| OpenSSL, which for some reason is not OpenSource or at least was not
at the
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote:
Even the cases above, what's happened is that the companies concerned have
been forced to release the sourcecode for modifications to GCC,
modifications to Linux and Linux device drivers, but thay have NOT been
forced to give up the proprietary software w
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Philipp Steinkrueger wrote:
thats right. if you want to use the software itself to make new software
and you want to make money by seeling it, GPL is indeed a nightmare.
No it's not.
You are free to charge as much as you want for selling GPL software and
support, however
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote:
Would you either restate this, or explain what you mean, because on
the face, this is patently false.
You have just made a flat statement without any detail, and I am a bit tired
of this subject, so I am not going to respond until I see some reasonable
On Friday 26 August 2005 14:51, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Philipp Steinkrueger wrote:
> > thats right. if you want to use the software itself to make new software
> > and you want to make money by seeling it, GPL is indeed a nightmare.
>
> No it's not.
>
> You are free to charge as m
On Friday 26 August 2005 13:14, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >> Would you either restate this, or explain what you mean, because on
> >> the face, this is patently false.
> >
> > You have just made a flat statement without any detail, and I am a bit
> > tired of th
On Friday 26 August 2005 11:00, Philipp Steinkrueger wrote:
> Hi Kern,
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >Could you tell me where?
> >
> >It is a rather obvious concept, but I haven't seen anything really quite
> > the same. I'd be interested to see what similar "projects" are doing.
>
> i thought of redh
Hi Kern,
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Could you tell me where?
It is a rather obvious concept, but I haven't seen anything really quite the
same. I'd be interested to see what similar "projects" are doing.
i thought of redhat for example, although this is something different,
as they keep one
On Thursday 25 August 2005 23:38, Neil Schneider wrote:
> Kern Sibbald said:
> > Although BSD and other licenses are free for commercial users, I
> > wouldn't say
> > that is the case for GPL. For a commercial software company as
> > opposed to a
> > service company, GPL is somewhat of a nightmare
Kern Sibbald said:
> Although BSD and other licenses are free for commercial users, I
> wouldn't say
> that is the case for GPL. For a commercial software company as
> opposed to a
> service company, GPL is somewhat of a nightmare. It is true they
> don't have
> to pay for it, but it comes at a
On Thursday 25 August 2005 22:35, Philipp Steinkrueger wrote:
> Hi Kern,
>
>
> you can see this development at several places throughout the OpenSource
> scene.
Could you tell me where?
It is a rather obvious concept, but I haven't seen anything really quite the
same. I'd be interested to se
Hi Kern,
you can see this development at several places throughout the OpenSource
scene. actually i cant see any difference between this licence concept which
asks you to buy a licence if you want to make profit with the software and
"classical" commercial software which also allows private user
25 matches
Mail list logo
