I have a small quibble with the GPL on a point that seems that it
could be improved, unless, of course, my interpreation is incorrect.
The existing license seems to produce undesireable behavior in a
particular (admittedly, unusual) case.
Let us suppose that a company (Small Company) produces a
Mark Schreiber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a small quibble with the GPL on a point that seems that it
could be improved, unless, of course, my interpreation is incorrect.
The existing license seems to produce undesireable behavior in a
particular (admittedly, unusual) case.
You are
Mark Schreiber said on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:15:33PM -0500,:
Hmm ... You sound a lot like the clueless lawyers for SCO.
His heirs refuse to GPL-license the Fast List Interpreter package.
Thus, Fast Lisp Interpreter is not GPLed.
Not a problem. If RMS released it under the GPL license.
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Mark Schreiber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Normally, this is not a problem -- a company may remove offending
code and do a re-release. However, Small Company no longer controls
Smart Writer. Macrosoft is in charge.
You are confused about several
I was packaging elk for Debian, and also became new upstream because
it was unmaintained. I wonder what I should do with the license (atta-
ched to this message, even if not really necessary). It is an MIT-like
license, and there is no real permission to modify it, but if I am a new
copyright
Please remove this page
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00496.html
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003, at 22:08 -0500, Azhar Abdul-Quader wrote:
Please remove this page
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg004
96.html
I'd say you are out of luck. You *might* be able to talk to the
mailing-list managers, but I doubt they would really care.
7 matches
Mail list logo
