On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I don't have a problem with that. It's just that it must be clear that
this modified version of Vim (or compiled with a GPL'ed library) has
more restrictions than the Vim license mentions, since the GPL applies
as well (since it
Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you explain again why you don't want to dual-license Vim under the
GPL and some other license?
As I recall, your objection to the GPL is not that it places too few
restrictions on Vim, but that it places too many on it. (You feel it is
too hard for companies
On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:19 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
This appears to be a misunderstanding, because GNU is an operating
system--no more, no less.
It's also a funny animal, and some people also refer to the project that
set out to create the GNU system as the GNU project. (Not
Andrea Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the problem: Debian Alpha is lacking a good browser
the solution: there is a version of Netscape 4.7-4
that was compiled by Compaq for Tru64; this version is
also distributed by RedHat for Alpha; some people have
passed it thru alien and
- Original Message -
From: Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:22:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Not completely true. The GPL does allow distributing a modified version
without source code, but with some way to obtain the source code
somewhere. My draft license doesn't allow that, it requires that the
changes are always
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 07:30:19AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
different. The kernel is not strictly GPL'd, but
GPL-compatible. That clause that says system calls are
a-ok, supports the moral/legal intention of the GPL by
requiring such a declariation to be explicit. Correct?
No. The
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard
to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to
correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what the GPL
really means. I can't say I fully understand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Best on the quality information that I have gained
following these discussions -- thank you -- to say the
same thing that you have Marcus a little bit
different. The kernel is not strictly GPL'd, but
GPL-compatible. That clause that says system calls are
a-ok,
Branden Robinson wrote:
[many parts cut away]
The GPL does not allow adding changes that use a license
incompatible with it.
No license allows doing things with a program that are incompatible with
its license. This is a tautology. The relevant questions are: Does the
restrictions
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 is a free software license, and I think it is better than the
current Vim license. So I encourage you to switch to this license.
It is not
From Vim's point of view, the entire GPL'ed code constitute an
addition (a special case of a change), so it is all subject to the
conditions you apply to changes.
If you want to exempt, say, the addition of library code from your
conditions on modifications in general, you
c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the
modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a
context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you
add, so long as it does not restrict others
(Replies from multiple messages.)
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard
to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to
correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what
14 matches
Mail list logo
