NetBSD. Licensing.
Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
the NetBSD project (in two forms, no less!)
Pardon me while I sink into despair of ever untangling the mess, even if
we can use it
NetBSD. Licensing.
Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
the NetBSD project (in two forms, no less!)
Pardon me while I sink into despair of ever untangling the
On Oct 15, matthew green wrote:
NetBSD. Licensing.
Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
the NetBSD project (in two forms, no less!)
Pardon me while I sink into
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:20:06AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 15, matthew green wrote:
NetBSD. Licensing.
Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
the NetBSD
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in the source tree.
Hmm. This could get ugly quickly; my gut feeling is that
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL 4-clause software. to me, calling them incompatible such
that you refuse to link apps libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mark, espcially if you are linking GPL apps against
a BSD system -- are you going to
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in the source
It's the INSTALL.txt file, not a copyright file. I have not (yet) been able
to find a copyright or license file that directly applies to the sources
in CVS, either on the website or in CVS itself. Anyone who knows where the
heck the thing is hiding, do tell. :)
look in
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:47:01PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL 4-clause software. to me, calling them incompatible such
that you refuse to link apps libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mark, espcially if you
Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:47:01PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL 4-clause software. to me, calling them incompatible such
that you refuse to link apps libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mark,
* Joel Baker
| I can provide a tarball of my working chroot as it stands, if you want it;
| apt works, dpkg works, X works, and a number of userland things are quite
| operable. Still working on what will be needed for a proper base.tgz so we
| can debootstrap things (and thus use pbuilder).
Recently I came across a possible licensing conflict on one of the Debian
projects I'm participating in (the Debian/NetBSD port), and after some
discussion of it on the debian-legal mailing list, there wasn't much of a
concensus other than RMS clarifying it would help. A quick summary:
1) The
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is
[ Please note: this message is sent as an interested party who is working ]
[ on the Debian GNU/NetBSD project; I am in no way speaking on behalf of ]
[ Debian in any official capacity.]
Recently I came across a possible licensing conflict on one of the
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:15:45PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Joel Baker wrote:
a GPL compatible license); this question is solely about linking against
the libraries which are build from the non-third-party source found in
the NetBSD souce tree.
Do you
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Joel Baker wrote:
Do you have any specific examples of this?
Please see the archives of debian-legal, both on the current thread for
this and past threads regarding linking GPL binaries and non-GPL-compatible
licenses (and what constitutes the latter).
I read that one
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:19:50PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
This is quite confusing, since FSF code itself is provided for using with
non-GPL'd libraries.
Please read the GPL.
Especially the paragraph following paragraph c of section 3.
In essence: you're allowed to distribute GPLed code
19 matches
Mail list logo
