On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No. It has always been understood by the GNU Project that using
kernel syscalls does not make something one program; the fact that
Linus mentions that explicitly doesn't change the fact one whit.
How is the GNU Project's
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No. It has always been understood by the GNU Project that using
kernel syscalls does not make something one program; the fact that
Linus mentions that explicitly doesn't change
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:29:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[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
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, so Debian has written and signed permission from all copyright
holders? Don't think so... I don't know how valid the copyright and
license remarks in the files are. There are quite a few files without a
license
Richard Stallman wrote:
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
Richard Stallman 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 is a free software license, and I think it is better than the
current Vim license. So I encourage you to switch
Glenn Maynard wrote:
As I already said, it's allowed to compile, but you might not be allowed
to distribute the result. That's actually the main problem of the GPL I
don't like. But the dual-licensing would solve that.
Which is it, linkable-but-not-distributable or
Richard Stallman wrote:
2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified,
at
least in the version information and in the intro screen.
The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific,
hence not GPL-compatible.
I could not find
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified,
at
least in the version information and in the intro screen.
The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific,
hence
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
The question is what licenses I could use for modified versions of
Vim. Specifically, could I release a modified version of Vim under
the GPL? A license is GPL-compatible if it permits that; otherwise,
it is not
Whoops. Botched a couple CC's. I'll forward them.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I'm a bit confused here:
d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned
After this comes under c).
At the time I quoted this, I had been reading
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think you better use the principle that Vim comes as a package, and
the license applies to the whole package, unless stated otherwise in
individual files.
I agree, just as the copyright notice at the beginning of a book applies
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Isn't it clear that this is about further distributing a modified Vim as
was created as mentioned under c)?
Does this mean that you can only use 3c for your own changes; and 3d for
other peoples' changes? That's ... odd.
Yes, because only the person who makes the
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, so Debian has written and signed permission from all copyright
holders? Don't think so... I don't know how valid the copyright and
license remarks in the files are.
Another problem that I'm worried about is that many people will think
Vim _is_ GPL. It will be mentioned in lists in magazines and on web
sites. We would have to check and request correction where it's wrong.
Perhaps it would help to give a good name to the dual license. GPL++
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Hmm, this only says the files must include a notice. The executable
might not display the notice, thus a user might not be able to see he is
using a modified version.
This clause 2) was not in the previous version of the Vim
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Does this mean that you can only use 3c for your own changes; and 3d for
other peoples' changes? That's ... odd.
Yes, because only the person who makes the changes can decide what
license to use for them. People further
Hi,
(PS: I am not sure RMS follows this list, and you did not CC him, so he might
not have read your mail).
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:27:14PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I ask one of my friends what is GNU he doesn't just think of the
OS, GNU is more than that.
This
18 matches
Mail list logo
