On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Debian
can't use the OS exception.
If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS exemption have ever
been meant to be useful at all? I don't believe dynamic linking was popular
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:02:36PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
As we all know, the FSF [6] considers the mere act of linking to
create a derived work for the purposes of the GPL, and claims
anything linked to a GPL'd work must also be distributable under the
terms of the GPL.
If
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:04:55PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
anything to which we need to apply this exception,
Scripsit Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Debian
can't use the OS exception.
If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS exemption have ever
been meant to be useful at all?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
opinion
on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
Scripsit Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS
exemption have ever been meant to be useful at all?
It is meant to allow third-party distribution of binaries linked with
the C libraries of
On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
But if you link the binary with the C library of a proprietary Unix (and
it's
not dynamic linking), you are distributing the component with the executable
No I'm not. I can perfectly well give away a staically linked binary
without also giving a copy
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm more concerned with pushing the ocaml.el discussion to a
conclusion.
One step on the way to a conclusion is to figure out whether the .el
files are derived from Emacs solely by virtue of using Emacs's APIs.
I've thought about this some more and
Scripsit Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
No I'm not. I can perfectly well give away a staically linked binary
without also giving a copy of the libc.a file is linked with. The fact
that *parts* of the library go into the binary cannot be used to
On Jan 30, 2004, at 14:44, Måns Rullgård wrote:
What about the ones that say You must do one of these, giving a
bunch of possibly incompatible options?
That's fine, as long as one of the options is free. We have a very
well-known and accepted license like that, the GNU GPL.
Look at
On Jan 30, 2004, at 13:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try to send them a note asking about converting to a real license,
but I think I'll pass on the package for now.
If you contact them, may I suggest GPL? They seem to want copyleft.
On Jan 29, 2004, at 21:31, Branden Robinson wrote:
Adobe is probably busy lobbying to get a certain bill passed which
will rectify that little defect in U.S. copyright law.
If the Court has any shred of basic literacy left in reading the
Constitution, that should go nowhere. Not sure at the
On Jan 29, 2004, at 23:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE PROCEEDING. BY CLICKING ON
THE ACCEPT BUTTON BELOW, OR BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, USING,
COPYING,
MODIFYING OR DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE OR DERIVATIVE WORKS THEREOF,
YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE
On Jan 30, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I believe it's still GPL-incompatible. See The Phorum License,
Version
1.2 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html .
FYI, the Phorum license linked off the FSF page is version 2.0. I have
no idea what 1.2 looked like, but its 3 4
On Feb 2, 2004, at 15:11, paul cannon wrote:
One
might make wide use of GNU grep extensively in a proprietary program,
for example, and do so without affecting or worrying about the license
on grep at all.
Lotus v. Borland
I don't think grep's CLI can have a copyright at all.
On Feb 2, 2004, at 16:46, MJ Ray wrote:
However, if there is a good reason why the result of a compile that
included a file from a work, which appears only in that work because
it is an extension unique to that work, is not derived from that work,
I'm interested to read it.
The most obvious
The following licence is in use by the libpqxx package (C++ binding
for PostgreSQL), and a companion library (libpqxx-object) which I am
writing. It appears to be a BSD-style licence, with all UCB
references removed, but I'd just like to check with you that it is
DFSG-free since it is a different
On Jan 31, 2004, at 21:40, Michael Adams wrote:
-- START OF REVISED JASPER SOFTWARE LICENSE --
JasPer License Version 2.0
Copyright (c) 1999-2000 Image Power, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1999-2000 The University of British Columbia
Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Michael David Adams
All
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12.0 MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement
and understanding between the pa rties as to the subject matter hereof
and merges all prior discussions between them. This Agreement shall be
governed by the laws of the
On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:17, Henning Makholm wrote:
So it seems. However, beware of works that include php and mysql as
well as third-party code with the original un-excepted GPL.
I could see the following as being a problem:
a) foo.php under PHP 3.0 License using MySQL and a GPL PHP
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:25:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:17, Henning Makholm wrote:
So it seems. However, beware of works that include php and mysql as
well as third-party code with the original un-excepted GPL.
I could see the following as being a problem:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:46:54PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
The following licence is in use by the libpqxx package (C++ binding
for PostgreSQL), and a companion library (libpqxx-object) which I am
writing. It appears to be a BSD-style licence, with all UCB
references removed, but I'd just
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
It appears to be a BSD-style licence, with all UCB references
removed,
Yeah, that's pretty much what it is.
but I'd just like to check with you that it is DFSG-free since it is
a different licence, and IANAL. In particular, the no advertising
without
I think [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the place to go for this page, not [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:49:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
1.2 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html .
FYI, the Phorum license linked off the FSF page is version 2.0. I have
no idea what
On Feb 2, 2004, at 14:02, paul cannon wrote:
I don't quite see how this is so. If the XFree86 Project were to say-
theoretically- something like linking dynamically to an XFree86
library
does not constitute a derived work for the purposes of the XFree86
license then Qt (e.g.) could be
Response Message :
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: hi
Reason: 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... User unknown
Response Message :
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hello
Reason: 550 Invalid recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I need clarification on what a package is. For example, the policy
states (2.2.1):
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a Depends,
Recommends, or Build-Depends
28 matches
Mail list logo
