Mark Rafn wrote:
It [Perl's copyright holders] can't retroactively change licenses.
There will always be a free Perl.
It is my understanding that licensees (generally) haven't been given any
consideration in exchange for the software, so a license can be revoked by
the licensor at any time. I,
On Thursday 06 February 2003 23:55, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Mark Rafn wrote:
It [Perl's copyright holders] can't retroactively change licenses.
There will always be a free Perl.
It is my understanding that licensees (generally) haven't been given any
consideration in exchange for the
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The author can not take away ant rights that were granted. Of
course this is my interpretation of comments made here and
elsewhere. Anyone else care to weigh in?
IANAL but this has been discussed extensively in for example Slashdot,
and the
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
If I grab a random piece of GPL software today and start hacking and tomorrow
the author changes the license the copy I have does not change. This is what
allows projects to fork.
I think what allows GNU GPL-covered programs to be forked is that the GPL
grants
Dear all,
Is it possible to make a GPL'ed PHP4 software and distribute it?
Does the not depend on the Zend API
Is it possible to make a non-free plugin for a GPL'ed PHP4?
Where does linking occur? Can I prevent non-free software from using a
GPLEd with a strong dependency?
What about SQL
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:29:58AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The author can not take away ant rights that were granted. Of
course this is my interpretation of comments made here and
elsewhere. Anyone else care to weigh in?
IANAL but this
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:04:16AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
Is it possible to make a GPL'ed PHP4 software and distribute it?
Does the not depend on the Zend API
You can always release PHP-related software under the GPL and distribute
that code to others.
You can redistribute
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lot of things would break if licences were arbitrarily revocable. I
haven't heard of it happening in practice, and I'm not sure the
consideration argument from contract law has any validity.
Apart from those arguments, the consideration
Steve,
thank you for addressing my question.
It is really the question how can I protect a gpled php module from
being used and exploited by a developer who does not want to contribute
his code under the GPL. Where is the much loved sticky linking effect
like you have with gpled c code?
---
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 09:04, James Michael DuPont wrote:
Dear all,
...
What about SQL database, can I prevent non-free software from using the
database of a GPled application?
I don't particularly know about the rest, but this one is just plain
pure evil. Don't do it. Don't think about it.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, James Michael DuPont wrote:
It is really the question how can I protect a gpled php module from
being used and exploited by a developer who does not want to contribute
his code under the GPL.
You cannot. The GPL does not restrict use (or even exploitation, whatever
that
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:24:26PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Like Mysql does, my preventing you from connecting to the free server
using non-free clients.
It does? I'd be interested to hear more about this, as I don't see how
free software can restrict usage.
Perhaps he's referring to
Please post the following ad
We are in search of Hard Working Data Entry
worker.Paid per entry.No Selling or Marketing or commission.Earn and
work as much as you want.E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] With Subject Line-"[EMAIL PROTECTED] ID=154" "website
NAME".Visit-
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 09:29 pm, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
IANAL but this has been discussed extensively in for example Slashdot,
and the current theory of licensing in the US and probably in EU as
well is that a non-profit license can be revoked. It would mean that
the copies in existence
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:29:11PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I would go further and say that even if you didn't find any bugs,
looking for them is still a useful service.
Well, that's true. People get paid to do code review all the time. If
they're good at it, then their pay should
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 03:45:41PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Well, IANAL either, but I'd have thought that publicising the licensor
and their software by distributing it could very well be argued to be
consideration.
No way, man, these days copyright is a mechanism for *reducing*
publicity
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
A lot of things would break if licences were arbitrarily revocable. I
haven't heard of it happening in practice, and I'm not sure the
consideration argument from contract law has any validity.
Give http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html a read. It was
17 matches
Mail list logo
