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. =20
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person
who receives them
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 under the GPL. Since there hardly ever is an explicit
So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
resolved, then bug 121916 will operate (as it should) to keep analog
out of woody, which would be
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
resolved, then bug 121916 will operate (as it should) to keep
(crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct
followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate)
Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
to like it, and some of the licensing
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense
of other kinds of freedom. I am
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
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
Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
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
Glenn Maynard wrote:
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?
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It sounds to me like what you really want to support are two licensing
schemes; one for people who publicize the source code of their changes
to Vim, and one for people who don't. You can do this and still be
totally DFSG-free,
Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the modified BSD-license allow you to release forks under any
license, for example a proprietary one?
Yes.
Now, Microsoft Windows 95 is a well-known, proprietary system which
uses code from BSD. Thus, it includes the BSD copyright
We had this discussion before. Most people call the whole thing
Linux. It's just a name that people use. It's very common for people
to use a name which isn't 100% right, but they do it anyway.
I am aware of how common this mistake is. However, this is more than
just a mistake;
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Now, if anyone tries to distribute
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[warning to the innocent reader: this quote is a *proposed* licence
wording that does not actually apply to Vim, as far as I know]
You are allowed to distribute a modified version of
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and not having to provide a copy to the maintainer (that's
me). For
- Original Message -
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
If I ask one of my friends what is
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and not having to provide a
Stephen Turner wrote:
Actually, my understanding was that debian-legal couldn't agree whether it
was free or not, although I agreed to change it so that we could all agree
that it was free.
Yeah.
An actual date would be helpful. I am working on a new version at the
moment, and I was
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wish I had a date, but I don't.
Me too. Oh, you meant a date for the *release*. I just wish I had a
date.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is something I am very interested in, but as of
now, I am not well versed in the subject. My
searching has found that this topic is well discussed,
but not necessarily well described. Is there any
legal precedence here?
It's a standard case of a derived
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How so? Example: I write a book and suggest that you get another
book, because I am going to identify some page numbers in that book
where the content supports my content. If you don't get that book,
I am going to suggest that my book means nothing.
The combined
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My readings suggest that this may be known issue that
is not well addressed. I am hoping that it is well
addressed or really is a non-issue as you suggest.
It's really very tedious, you know, to think that you help things by
dredging up well-settled discussions,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman 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. =20
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
Yes it is.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
or intent from saying no thanks when the person handing you a binary
of GCC also offers you the source code. It's just a lot more
formalized.
Courts are more than able to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't believe that is really the same situation.
How isn't it?
Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably send your question
to him. He isn't subscribed to debian-legal (or
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't believe that is really the same situation.
How isn't it?
Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably send your
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:21:19AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Certainly the current Vim license is GPL-incompatible. (Even if we
decided it's free after all, it's definitely not ok to link it against
a GPLd library.)
I don't see how you can call a GPL'ed library free if it's not
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:51:38AM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
An actual date would be helpful. I am working on a new version at the
moment, and I was planning to change the licence in that version. But
if you give me a definite deadline, I can make sure to work to that.
I apologize on behalf
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:06:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wish I had a date, but I don't.
Me too. Oh, you meant a date for the *release*. I just wish I had a
date.
I thought you swore those off when you became a monk... :)
--
G.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:15:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
or intent from saying no thanks when the person handing you a binary
of GCC also offers you the source
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:03:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person
who receives them does not have to take or keep them.
If it didn't, then I as Big Evil Proprietary Software
Company would just sell binary-only
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:06:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wish I had a date, but I don't.
Me too. Oh, you meant a date for the *release*. I just wish I had a
date.
I thought you swore
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sorry that I upset you. I am not saying that I am
totally confused, nor that I read the right stuff. It
is interesting that you claim that I think that you
know better than me, and even more interesting that you
claim that I think that you are ignorant. If
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How so?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
No. Actually linking to the GPL'd library is not allowed if you are
doing so from non-GPL-compatible code.
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
challanges that support this.
It's a perfectly normal case of a derivative work. When you link
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your last suggestion seems contrary to your suggestion
to post your question somewhere less public. I guess
that is the nature of the beast.
It's the difference between real-world cases that people should
understand, and hypothetical rambling about possible things
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
This and related questions have been the subject of long and tedious
flamewars on debian-legal, complete with
a) Discussions about
44 matches
Mail list logo
