the terms of the GPL?
The GPL doesn't require that anything be available for free _download_.
The GPL doesn't specify the method of distribution; you could distribute
only on a stack of backup tapes if you wanted to.
--
Hubert Chan - email Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG
original source + patch.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
, in accord with Subsection b above.)
`
try again. if you keep coming up with these absurd claims, the laws of
chance says that you must get it right one day. OTOH, you've got a
better chance of winning a big lottery.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key
, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source
code. Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute
your 1KB chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains the source, and
still comply with the terms of the GPL
it, there has been no proof presented from the GFDL
that allows you to remove the invariant sections from a document and
just include a link to the originals.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
to the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
invariant sections
be part of the opaque copy.
Whether this difference is significant or not can still be argued.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail
only
open to zealots?
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
with our Social Contract, but we recognize that users may
still want to use it.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
Thanks for your analysis, Anthony.
Anthony == Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony On Feb 24, 2004, at 16:02, Hubert Chan wrote:
Hubert [1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL
Anthony Please paste license texts inline.
OK. Will do that in the future.
[...]
CPL Non Litigation
, and on the entire license in general.
[1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL
Please cc me, as I am not subscribed to the list.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available
documents are free, and was wondering if
anyone had any experience with that.
The FIPS home page is: http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/
Again, please cc me as I am not subscribed.
--
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7
just curious as to whether or not the rest of
the license text is actually consistent with that statement.
As to relicensing, IHMO, it's probably better to keep the original
license if possible. Especially if the CPL is already a free license,
then there's no real point in relicensing.
--
Hubert
13 matches
Mail list logo
