On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
That's questionable. That would mean
Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
clause QPL
6c problem.
Excellent.
FYI, I think this is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally
agreed on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic
licensing firewall, such that GPL code isn't linked against the
kernel or to other, unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal
His lieutenant struggled furiously against other monsters that crept to be revived and continued with their old names and boundaries was slow and some spasmodic movements of the muscles agitated his face
would arise from one or several of the following to me the duty of obeying the dying
OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following:
1. Modify a QPL'd work.
2. Because of the license under which I received the material,
distribute patches representing the modifications.
3. Distribute them to the
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following:
1. Modify a QPL'd work.
2. Because of the license under which I received the material,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following:
1. Modify a QPL'd work.
2.
Hey
Please forgive a new subscriber if this subject already has been debated to
death. In that case, just let me know and I'll quietly crawl away again.
Ok, here's my explanation of the problem:
There this package in recent Debian named 'curl' (using a MIT-like license).
It is built with
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following:
1. Modify a QPL'd work.
2. Because of the license
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
If this a hge can of worms or am I just plain wrong?
Ok, don't hit me.
I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic openssl is
PART of the OS etc so no need to say anything else.
Sorry for the noise.
--
-=-
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:31:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
a bunch. So please explain to me how to
On 2004-08-12 14:22:34 +0100 Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course getting curl to link with an SSL library that isn't GPL
incompatible would also be a fix for this particular case, but I
consider
that a pretty big job that won't happen this year (by me).
I think this might be
On 2004-08-12 14:31:19 +0100 Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic
openssl
is PART of the OS etc so no need to say anything else.
That doesn't work. OpenSSL is not an required part of the debian
operating system at
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be hard to argue that the licence implies that the patch must be
under the QPL, because (a) copyright law in the jurisdictions I'm aware of
says nothing about reciprocity of terms of derived works, (b) section 4
explicitly states when you must
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
I think you've read under this license as meaning that I license my
modifications to others under the QPL. I read it rather differently:
I think that says that if I release modifications, and the license
which allows me to release them is the QPL, then I must
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-08-12 14:31:19 +0100 Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic
openssl is PART of the OS etc so no need to say anything else.
That doesn't work. OpenSSL is not an required part of the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
I think you've read under this license as meaning that I license my
modifications to others under the QPL. I read it rather differently:
I think that says that if I release modifications, and the license
which allows me
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
with DFSG 3.
This is where you lose me. How is that incompatible with DFSG 3? If
the license says that Entity X gets
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 11:15:56PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
a bunch. So please
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's certainly an issue of bad wording; if instead of under this license
they had said under the terms of this license, I'd be right. If they
replaced it with as permitted by this license, you'd be right. As it
stands, the Annotations nudge, but I
O Xoves, 12 de Agosto de 2004 ás 11:29:50 -0400, Michael Poole escribía:
* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
with DFSG 3.
This is where you lose me. How is that incompatible with
Jacobo Tarrio writes:
O Xoves, 12 de Agosto de 2004 ás 11:29:50 -0400, Michael Poole escribía:
* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
with DFSG 3.
This is where you lose me. How
请您记下，以备急用！！！
本人工作五年，从事PC机组装维护到系统集成工程到网络设计/网络管理一路走来。现寻求各公司或个人电脑，网
络维护管理外包工作！我将能够给您提供最专业,最放心的服务！
如有需求，本人可根据您公司的需求量身订做一个专业方案,以保证您公司网络的稳定,数据的安全,操作起来比
以往能更便捷:可以根据您公司需求使用宽带路由或是ISA，SYGATE或是综合性等接入方案，可以实现更安全便捷的
打印服务，数据库服务，文件服务,邮件服务，电话系统等相关于网络系统的一切！如有需要也提供企业信息系统
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
else, but you should be able to.
Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
else, but you should be able to.
Then any Windows program which uses undocumented
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
* Licenses like the GPL or BSDPL, which allow modifiers to distribute
their changes only under that same license, are Free. That is,
compelling a copyleft is OK. Compelling a non-copyleft (BSDPL) is
also OK, if weird. It's just forcing me to give the same
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
the system calls and implements them in
Josh Triplett writes:
* Uneven licenses, which have multiple distinct free paths, are Free
as long as there is one Free path. That is, BSD to teachers, GPL
to everyone else is OK. If I'm a teacher, I have a free license
and can distribute my changes under any license I like,
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:15:38PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Note, of course, that you only need to release the source to the work(s)
derived from a work under this license, which may not be everything
running on the kiosk. (Of course, you _should_, but you are not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says
obtaining, using and/or copying this work implies acceptance of the
license.
I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a
Walter Landry wrote:
I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an
acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at all). Matthew Palmer
mentioned it again here
* Daniel Stenberg:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
If this a hge can of worms or am I just plain wrong?
Ok, don't hit me.
I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic
openssl is PART of the OS etc so no need to say anything else.
I thought that for
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
the system calls and
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:32:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
True. The question becomes: is it too onerous?
After all, people have said the GPL is onerous. Consider the reference
card scenario. Either you distribute source at the same time (which is
extremely onerous for a reference
* Walter Landry:
I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
that there is a fee involved
Maybe you got no serious rebuttals because it's a bit hard to take
your analysis seriously. 8-)
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
else, but you should be able to.
Then
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:38:50AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
else, but you
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:31:19PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
If this a hge can of worms or am I just plain wrong?
Ok, don't hit me.
I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic openssl
is PART of the OS etc so no
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:22:34PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
There this package in recent Debian named 'curl' (using a MIT-like
license). It is built with OpenSSL (you all know the OpenSSL license).
With curl there comes two (that we care about here) debian packages
nowadays named
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Lots of people become disappointed in the GPL once they personally become
the one wasting time reimplementing stuff due to incompatibilities that
the GPL deliberately causes. I no longer use the GPL for my own work,
preferring the MIT license--do what you want, don't
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
else, but you should be
Given the fact that this topic seems to come up relatively often, would it
be a good idea to put a few things into a FAQ for people to refer to?
I am willing to put down a draft of questions. I have proposed this as a
side note in a private mail, and was pointed that this not a Debian-specific
On 2004-08-12 23:59:00 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the fact that this topic seems to come up relatively often,
would it
be a good idea to put a few things into a FAQ for people to refer to?
Yes, and that's why people started work on one already. Please add to
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:22:34PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Please forgive a new subscriber if this subject already has been debated to
death. In that case, just let me know and I'll quietly crawl away again.
Ok, here's my explanation of the problem:
There this package in recent Debian
On 13-08-2004 0:09, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the issue of non-GPL-compatible licenses is certainly annoying,
but I don't really see any way around it without losing the copyleft.
I see a theoretical and a practical way.
First of all the theoretical way:
I would have
Hi folks,
I have a difficult query about open source, which I hope someone here
can help with. My friend Gordon was very close to having a working
Flash 7 player called magnesium that runs under Linux, and wanted to
release it as open source. He passed away last month, and his friends
want to do
[Sorry for the Cc if you're subscribed]
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:13:13AM +0100, Robert Gibson wrote:
I have a difficult query about open source, which I hope someone here
can help with. My friend Gordon was very close to having a working
Flash 7 player called magnesium that runs under Linux,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:59:00AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Given the fact that this topic seems to come up relatively often, would it
be a good idea to put a few things into a FAQ for people to refer to?
In my opinion, it should be added to, or referred from either or both:
48 matches
Mail list logo
