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)
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
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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo