Re: Modifying the GPL2?

2002-01-05 Thread Karl E. Jorgensen
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:10:48AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 02:25:21PM +, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote: snip No. It's a eurospeakised version, like this: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LISENSE Version 2, June 1991 Kopyright (C)

Re: draft for new Vim license

2002-01-05 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: Yes. Thus if you add code and put it under the GPL, then the GPL would apply to the whole (if I understand the GPL correctly). So the question is if this would cause a conflict with the Vim license, which would prohibit you

Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license

2002-01-05 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:28:55PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, I am worried for our free software community then. You sound like the software companies that do not want people to be able to publicly publish security bug reports. How did the GPL get to its current state then? O

Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license

2002-01-05 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:22:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: For example, the kernel is GPLed but will load and run programs with incompatible licenses. Those programs make syscalls to the kernel to perform system work; how is this permitted? It is so different from an incompatibly-licensed

Re: draft for new Vim license

2002-01-05 Thread Bram Moolenaar
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm wrote: Yes. Thus if you add code and put it under the GPL, then the GPL would apply to the whole (if I understand the GPL correctly). So the question is if this would cause a conflict with the Vim