On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 07:18:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST; DO NOT CC ME ON REPLIES, YOU FILTHY SWINES.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 04:13:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please respect my damn mail headers.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:27:46PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
It also does not require that I send the changes to the maintainer.
That's the sticking point.
The GPL requires you to make the source code available to every user.
That's quite bit stickier, in
Branden Robinson wrote:
If there's nothing else objectionable to you about the GPL, then it
sounds like one easy way out of this tedious thread would be just to GPL
Vim and add a section to your copyright boilerplate:
Alternative licensing terms are available; contact
[EMAIL
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with this is that it's not really fair towards people who
help me developing Vim. I want it to be clear what can happen with the
source code they contribute. Just mentioning that anything can happen
with the license isn't a good idea, in
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST; DO NOT CC ME ON REPLIES, YOU FILTHY SWINES.
Oh, but that's fine, if abrasive. In fact, you seem to be using
Mail-Copies-To and X-No-CC, and gnus does seem to support one
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Companies that try to make money from software very often distribute
their software. How else would they make money? Thus mostly they run
into this rule of the GPL.
There is nothing that prevents you from using a dual-license scheme of
GPL and
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with this is that it's not really fair towards people who
help me developing Vim. I want it to be clear what can happen with the
source code they contribute. Just mentioning that anything can happen
with
I just wanted to point out that the problem with the vim license is the
same as the problem with Apple's licensing for Darwin.
Not that that's important or significant in any way... or that this
email is meaningful..
Sue
If you provide the source code with the modified program, but the
receiver loses it, he may ask for it again.
Under the GPL, if you distribute the source with the binaries, nobody
can insist on getting anything from you subsequently.
If you distribute just binaries, you must provide a
The Vim license keeps an
opening for a company to make a modified version of Vim and sell it, if
he can agree with me on the conditions.
This is always true. Regardless of what license you *state* in the
program, you always have the possibility of agreeing to some other
arrangement
What happens
to me if I am Joe Q. Ignorant User running my GNU/Linux distribution
with no source code on the machine, and I give my friend a copy of my
gcc executable?
Under the GPL, this is only allowed if you obtained this executable
with a written offer to provide source
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or just tell them where to find it at the time you give them the
executable. If they don't avail themselves of that opportunity at that
time, that's their problem, at least as long as you yourself don't cause
that resource to become unavailable.
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, as soon as I have received the changes the conditions are met and
that person can delete his copy.
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
Richard Stallman wrote:
The Vim license keeps an
opening for a company to make a modified version of Vim and sell it, if
he can agree with me on the conditions.
This is always true. Regardless of what license you *state* in the
program, you always have the possibility of
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not entirely clear on what can link to GPL libraries and when.
--
Glenn Maynard
[ Is Bram on this list? ]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Peter writes a GPLd program. The John distributes a copy of the GPLd
program to Mary, and he must give Mary the source. He does not have
to give the source to Peter. He and Mary are allowed to keep the
changes entirely secret if they
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:34:26AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
If there's nothing else objectionable to you about the GPL, then it
sounds like one easy way out of this tedious thread would be just to GPL
Vim and add a section to your copyright boilerplate:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:08:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or just tell them where to find it at the time you give them the
executable. If they don't avail themselves of that opportunity at that
time, that's their problem, at least
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
That is not what the license says. And in any case, this still puts a
burden on modifiers to make sure that their modifications will exist
SOMEWHERE indefinitely.
No, as soon as I have received the changes
The point is
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not entirely clear on what can link
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just wanted to point out that the problem with the vim license is the
same as the problem with Apple's licensing for Darwin.
Is Darwin in Debian main or contrib? If so, and if you're right
(where can one find the license?), a bug report should
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:01:44AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
What happens
to me if I am Joe Q. Ignorant User running my GNU/Linux distribution
with no source code on the machine, and I give my friend a copy of my
gcc executable?
Under the GPL, this is only allowed if
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Er, while I'm sure you're quite accustomed to saying things like this to
me, I don't think you actually sent this to Bram.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's been said, over and over. The problem is that any kind of
requirement that forces people to send back changes upstream is not
DFSG-free.
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
I am surprised by
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you got this executable by (for instance) downloading the
executable from debian.org, where the source was available but you did
not get it, then you can't redistribute. You have to get the source
code, and redistribute with the source code.
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
I am surprised by this. Since when has this been true?
At least since the beginning of 1998 when I started reading
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eh? I can't redistribute a binary even if I haven't modified it?
Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
say you don't need to give me the source, and then you're off the
hook.
Sure, *programmers* would far rather
Ten million Linux users can't be wrong!
If they think of themselves as Linux users, they are wrong already
;-). The system is GNU; Linux is the kernel. They are really
GNU/Linux users.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
explanation.
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
say you don't need to give me the source, and then you're off the
hook.
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
If I don't give someone the source
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Er, while I'm sure you're quite accustomed to saying things like this to
me, I don't think you actually sent this to Bram.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning said this as well, but I guess it bothers me a little bit that
the GPL prohibits this sort of sane, reasonable, and harmless activity.
While I may trust the FSF not to sue me for helping a friend out by
scp'ing various GNU/Linux binaries to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning said this as well, but I guess it bothers me a little bit that
the GPL prohibits this sort of sane, reasonable, and harmless activity.
I think an important point is that the situations where the activity
is actually harmless are exactly the
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be
distributed with another license every person that contributed would have
to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for the part he
contributed
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not
On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 01:26 AM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just wanted to point out that the problem with the vim license is the
same as the problem with Apple's licensing for Darwin.
Is Darwin in Debian main or contrib? If so, and
On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 23:58, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
It's not in any Debian archive that I know of. (I didn't mean to imply
that, sorry.)
A discussion of the license can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Darwin per se isn't, but qtss is, which is under the same
36 matches
Mail list logo
