On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:38:19AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you could address all your company's
concerns by licensing the headers and build files needed to compile your
libraries under BSD (or maybe LGPL) and license the rest of your content
under GPL.
Or is
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:50:58PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
I suppose that it would mean excluding *all* the syndicated comics
(dilbert, calvin and hobbes etc.). They cover 2/3 of the comics.
They will not give me an explicit permission, but I'd like to know if
I'm
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Many packages in the past have been accepted in main with updated
licensing terms even if their last formal release contained a
different and non-free license.
To my understanding, at least, the licenses for these packages
involved direct communication
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Lost attribution, Josh I think
Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
accusations of patent infringement
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
Steve,
If I follow you correctly
A - writes program #49 and licenced under
GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
enhancement/change)
C - determines their patent
Dan Chen wrote:
--- Mikael Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have debianized alsa-tools and am looking for a
sponsor.
What is the status of alsa-tools being in Debian
legally? Rather, what is debian-legal's stance on
these packages? Since the firmware has been separated
out into upstream's
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:32:44 + Mark Brown wrote:
I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained
yet.
I'm not used to complain if a volunteer seems to not have enough time to
get a job done... (unless he/she has promised to do so, but this is not
the case now IIRC).
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:38:19 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Because all public interfaces is too general a concept.
Too general for what? Not too general for the precedents and public
policy imperatives to be applicable. Not too general to describe
clearly. Not too general
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:38:19 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because all public interfaces is too general a concept.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:03:57PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Too general for what?
That is indeed a good question.
Once we settle what it is that we're
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:09:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Great. Except either this interpretation isn't part of the contract,
and therefore doesn't bind other contributors, or else I've created
another little almost-GPL fiefdom, and any bit of code that turns out
to have been
Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That given was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it
I'm sorry that Nick feels misunderstood. The point I was trying to
make was that the proposition as written was far too broad and agreeing
with it probably means agreeing with popular bogeymen like the pet a cat
licence.
Nick wrote:
So the question I was trying to ask was do we believe that
Mark Brown For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished -
Francesco Poli So did I.
Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
mean the long licence summaries? What would they have done?
Gostaria de saber o preço do telemovel
7650
obrigada
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:49:42PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
When one work requires the other in order to function, then you have
gotten past mere aggregation. So Emacs is not required for Kaffe to
work, or vice versa. Putting them on the same medium
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not going to package any software under that license. I just
want to know, if installing, running and using software under such
license is ethically right thing to do.
If it's not about debian, it's probably off-topic for debian-legal.
I'll stop here
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a
Hello all,
I am packaging clamav, and upstream uses latex2html to generate the html
documentation for it. The problem is that upstream has not been
including the icons from latex2html in the distributed tarball, breaking
links for users who don't happen to have latex2html installed (the
Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may sound off-topic first, but think about these future scenarios:
They are actually that: future. By the time they occur, we'll probably
have had CDDL 1.2, 1.2.5, 1.2.5.1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 ;-)
Anyone can ask again when it's relevant.
--
To
Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you
build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse.
Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That given was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The GPL puts restrictions on whole works.
True.
Requires to run is a useful heuristic to determine what a whole
work is.
Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
If you have
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
But I have only seen people talk about derivative works, and the GPL
clearly goes beyond just derived works.
[1] I don't think this phrase derivative works means what you think
it means.
[2] Whether
In other words: derivative works include mere aggregation.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:57:29PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
As a point of law, derivative works are not a superset of mere
aggregation in the US, and I suspect not in other jursidictions. 17
USC 101 requires that a derivative
25 matches
Mail list logo
