On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:19 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
This appears to be a misunderstanding, because GNU is an operating
system--no more, no less.
It's also a funny animal, and some people also refer to the project that
set out to create the GNU system as the GNU project. (Not
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No. It has always been understood by the GNU Project that using
kernel syscalls does not make something one program; the fact that
Linus mentions that explicitly doesn't change the fact one whit.
How is the GNU Project's
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No. It has always been understood by the GNU Project that using
kernel syscalls does not make something one program; the fact that
Linus mentions that explicitly doesn't change
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:29:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
No. Actually linking to the GPL'd library is not allowed
Hi,
(PS: I am not sure RMS follows this list, and you did not CC him, so he might
not have read your mail).
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:27:14PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I ask one of my friends what is GNU he doesn't just think of the
OS, GNU is more than that.
This
On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:19 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
This appears to be a misunderstanding, because GNU is an operating
system--no more, no less.
It's also a funny animal, and some people also refer to the project that
set out to create the GNU system as the GNU project. (Not
- Original Message -
From: Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:22:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 07:30:19AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
different. The kernel is not strictly GPL'd, but
GPL-compatible. That clause that says system calls are
a-ok, supports the moral/legal intention of the GPL by
requiring such a declariation to be explicit. Correct?
No. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Best on the quality information that I have gained
following these discussions -- thank you -- to say the
same thing that you have Marcus a little bit
different. The kernel is not strictly GPL'd, but
GPL-compatible. That clause that says system calls are
a-ok,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:28:55PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I am worried for our free software community then.
You sound like the software companies that do not want
people to be able to publicly publish security bug reports.
How did the GPL get to its current state then? O
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:22:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For example, the kernel is GPLed but will load and run programs
with incompatible licenses. Those programs make syscalls to
the kernel to perform system work; how is this permitted?
It is so different from an incompatibly-licensed
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:45:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
challanges that support this.
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't dismiss this as completely obvious. It's not uncontroversial.
For example, the kernel is GPLed but will load and run programs
with incompatible licenses. Those programs make syscalls to
the kernel to perform system work; how is this permitted?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we were talking about is that of library
linking.
I should add here that it is relevant that the callouts to the kernel
are callouts to an
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we were talking about is that of library
linking.
I should add
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we were talking about is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Why is it so different to a published library function?
Apart from convenience of argument, that is.
Libraries are much more tightly integrated with their callers, for
example.
Oh, and you ignored my stressing the importance of
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 06:03:30PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we
Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
say you don't need to give me the source, and then you're off the
hook. =20
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person
who receives them
Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be
distributed with another license every person that contributed would have
to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for the part he
contributed under the GPL. Since there hardly ever is an explicit
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not
Richard Stallman wrote:
Ten million Linux users can't be wrong!
If they think of themselves as Linux users, they are wrong already
;-). The system is GNU; Linux is the kernel. They are really
GNU/Linux users.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
explanation.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be
distributed with another license every person that contributed would have
to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible?
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It sounds to me like what you really want to support are two licensing
schemes; one for people who publicize the source code of their changes
to Vim, and one for people who don't. You can do this and still be
totally DFSG-free,
We had this discussion before. Most people call the whole thing
Linux. It's just a name that people use. It's very common for people
to use a name which isn't 100% right, but they do it anyway.
I am aware of how common this mistake is. However, this is more than
just a mistake;
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[warning to the innocent reader: this quote is a *proposed* licence
wording that does not actually apply to Vim, as far as I know]
You are allowed to distribute a modified version of
- Original Message -
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
If I ask one of my friends what
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is something I am very interested in, but as of
now, I am not well versed in the subject. My
searching has found that this topic is well discussed,
but not necessarily well described. Is there any
legal precedence here?
It's a standard case of a derived
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How so? Example: I write a book and suggest that you get another
book, because I am going to identify some page numbers in that book
where the content supports my content. If you don't get that book,
I am going to suggest that my book means nothing.
The combined
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My readings suggest that this may be known issue that
is not well addressed. I am hoping that it is well
addressed or really is a non-issue as you suggest.
It's really very tedious, you know, to think that you help things by
dredging up well-settled discussions,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
say you don't need to give me the source, and then you're off the
hook. =20
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
Yes it is.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
or intent from saying no thanks when the person handing you a binary
of GCC also offers you the source code. It's just a lot more
formalized.
Courts are more than able to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't believe that is really the same situation.
How isn't it?
Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably send your question
to him. He isn't subscribed to debian-legal (or
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't believe that is really the same situation.
How isn't it?
Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably send your
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:21:19AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Certainly the current Vim license is GPL-incompatible. (Even if we
decided it's free after all, it's definitely not ok to link it against
a GPLd library.)
I don't see how you can call a GPL'ed library free if it's not
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:15:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
or intent from saying no thanks when the person handing you a binary
of GCC also offers you the source
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:03:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person
who receives them does not have to take or keep them.
If it didn't, then I as Big Evil Proprietary Software
Company would just sell binary-only
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sorry that I upset you. I am not saying that I am
totally confused, nor that I read the right stuff. It
is interesting that you claim that I think that you
know better than me, and even more interesting that you
claim that I think that you are ignorant. If
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
No. Actually linking to the GPL'd library is not allowed if you are
doing so from non-GPL-compatible code.
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
challanges that support this.
It's a perfectly normal case of a derivative work. When you link
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your last suggestion seems contrary to your suggestion
to post your question somewhere less public. I guess
that is the nature of the beast.
It's the difference between real-world cases that people should
understand, and hypothetical rambling about possible things
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
This and related questions have been the subject of long and tedious
flamewars on debian-legal, complete with
a) Discussions about
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 07:18:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST; DO NOT CC ME ON REPLIES, YOU FILTHY SWINES.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 04:13:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please respect my damn mail headers.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:27:46PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
It also does not require that I send the changes to the maintainer.
That's the sticking point.
The GPL requires you to make the source code available to every user.
That's quite bit stickier, in
Branden Robinson wrote:
If there's nothing else objectionable to you about the GPL, then it
sounds like one easy way out of this tedious thread would be just to GPL
Vim and add a section to your copyright boilerplate:
Alternative licensing terms are available; contact
[EMAIL
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with this is that it's not really fair towards people who
help me developing Vim. I want it to be clear what can happen with the
source code they contribute. Just mentioning that anything can happen
with the license isn't a good idea, in
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Companies that try to make money from software very often distribute
their software. How else would they make money? Thus mostly they run
into this rule of the GPL.
There is nothing that prevents you from using a dual-license scheme of
GPL and
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with this is that it's not really fair towards people who
help me developing Vim. I want it to be clear what can happen with the
source code they contribute. Just mentioning that anything can happen
with
If you provide the source code with the modified program, but the
receiver loses it, he may ask for it again.
Under the GPL, if you distribute the source with the binaries, nobody
can insist on getting anything from you subsequently.
If you distribute just binaries, you must provide a
The Vim license keeps an
opening for a company to make a modified version of Vim and sell it, if
he can agree with me on the conditions.
This is always true. Regardless of what license you *state* in the
program, you always have the possibility of agreeing to some other
arrangement
What happens
to me if I am Joe Q. Ignorant User running my GNU/Linux distribution
with no source code on the machine, and I give my friend a copy of my
gcc executable?
Under the GPL, this is only allowed if you obtained this executable
with a written offer to provide source
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or just tell them where to find it at the time you give them the
executable. If they don't avail themselves of that opportunity at that
time, that's their problem, at least as long as you yourself don't cause
that resource to become unavailable.
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, as soon as I have received the changes the conditions are met and
that person can delete his copy.
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
Richard Stallman wrote:
The Vim license keeps an
opening for a company to make a modified version of Vim and sell it, if
he can agree with me on the conditions.
This is always true. Regardless of what license you *state* in the
program, you always have the possibility of
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not entirely clear on what can link to GPL libraries and when.
--
Glenn Maynard
[ Is Bram on this list? ]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Peter writes a GPLd program. The John distributes a copy of the GPLd
program to Mary, and he must give Mary the source. He does not have
to give the source to Peter. He and Mary are allowed to keep the
changes entirely secret if they
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:34:26AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
If there's nothing else objectionable to you about the GPL, then it
sounds like one easy way out of this tedious thread would be just to GPL
Vim and add a section to your copyright boilerplate:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:08:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or just tell them where to find it at the time you give them the
executable. If they don't avail themselves of that opportunity at that
time, that's their problem, at least
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
That is not what the license says. And in any case, this still puts a
burden on modifiers to make sure that their modifications will exist
SOMEWHERE indefinitely.
No, as soon as I have received the changes
The point is
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not entirely clear on what can link
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:01:44AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
What happens
to me if I am Joe Q. Ignorant User running my GNU/Linux distribution
with no source code on the machine, and I give my friend a copy of my
gcc executable?
Under the GPL, this is only allowed if
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Er, while I'm sure you're quite accustomed to saying things like this to
me, I don't think you actually sent this to Bram.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's been said, over and over. The problem is that any kind of
requirement that forces people to send back changes upstream is not
DFSG-free.
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
I am surprised by
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you got this executable by (for instance) downloading the
executable from debian.org, where the source was available but you did
not get it, then you can't redistribute. You have to get the source
code, and redistribute with the source code.
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Right, but you must send your changes back upstream requirements are
not DFSG-free.
I am surprised by this. Since when has this been true?
At least since the beginning of 1998 when I started reading
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eh? I can't redistribute a binary even if I haven't modified it?
Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
say you don't need to give me the source, and then you're off the
hook.
Sure, *programmers* would far rather
Ten million Linux users can't be wrong!
If they think of themselves as Linux users, they are wrong already
;-). The system is GNU; Linux is the kernel. They are really
GNU/Linux users.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
explanation.
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
say you don't need to give me the source, and then you're off the
hook.
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
If I don't give someone the source
Bushnell, BSG)
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Glenn Maynard
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning said this as well, but I guess it bothers me a little bit that
the GPL prohibits this sort of sane, reasonable, and harmless activity.
While I may trust the FSF not to sue me for helping a friend out by
scp'ing various GNU/Linux binaries to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning said this as well, but I guess it bothers me a little bit that
the GPL prohibits this sort of sane, reasonable, and harmless activity.
I think an important point is that the situations where the activity
is actually harmless are exactly the
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be
distributed with another license every person that contributed would have
to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for the part he
contributed
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
not
Richard -
That only talks about unmodified executables. So nothing seems
to give permission for distributing executables of modified
versions of Vim. It is important to give that permission
explicitly.
It was given implicitly, but I can clear that up to avoid confusion.
It seems you
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 01:26:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
I don't see this as a relevant problem. The person that distributed the
modified version can ask the people he gave the source code to send me a
copy. So he can still delete his own copy (although that's
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with
executables and/or source code, when the following conditions are
met. If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are
encouraged to make it available to the maintainer, including the
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim, with
executables and/or source code, when the following conditions are
met. If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are
encouraged to make it available to
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this is so, then there are these possibilities:
- Nobody has a copy of this modified version. Then it doesn't exist
and the license doesn't apply.
Wrong, the paragraph says that if you distribute a modified version,
then you must provide the
Thomas -
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this is so, then there are these possibilities:
- Nobody has a copy of this modified version. Then it doesn't exist
and the license doesn't apply.
Wrong, the paragraph says that if you distribute a modified version,
then you
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the license doesn't say forever.
It has no time limit, does it?
The easiest way to avoid this is to send me the changes before
destroying them. Then you no longer need to keep a copy. And yes, if
you distribute a modified version of Vim, the
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:10:40PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
- Nobody has a copy of this modified version. Then it doesn't exist
and the license doesn't apply.
Wrong, the paragraph says that if you distribute a modified version,
then you must provide the changes to the vim
Thomas -
The GPL does not require that you keep the source code forever. When
I give a copy to my friend, I have finished all my responsibilities.
I have no requirement to keep a copy, or know how to get in touch with
my friend next year.
The Vim license also doesn't require you keep the
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL does not require that you keep the source code forever. When
I give a copy to my friend, I have finished all my responsibilities.
I have no requirement to keep a copy, or know how to get in touch with
my friend next year.
The Vim
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:27:46PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
The GPL requires you to make the source code available to every user.
That's quite bit stickier, in my opinion. For most companies that means
they can't make money on their software. That's the main disadvantage of
using the GPL
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't need to defend whatever past decisions may have been made;
they quite possibly were simply incorrect.
Unless, of course, they involved the GNU Emacs Manual, right? :-P
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:27:46PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
It also does not require that I send the changes to the maintainer.
That's the sticking point.
The GPL requires you to make the source code available to every user.
That's quite bit stickier, in my opinion. For most
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't need to defend whatever past decisions may have been made;
they quite possibly were simply incorrect.
Unless, of course, they involved the GNU Emacs Manual, right? :-P
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Someone still has a copy. Then the person that made the changes
should be able to retrieve it and send the maintainer a copy.
If I make a change, and then distribute to John Doe, and then
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 02:01:14AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't need to defend whatever past decisions may have been made;
they quite possibly were simply
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 02:01:14AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't need to defend whatever past decisions may have been
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST; DO NOT CC ME ON REPLIES, YOU FILTHY SWINES.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 04:13:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please respect my damn mail headers.
And damn headers they are. This business of hiding little requests
in
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST; DO NOT CC ME ON REPLIES, YOU FILTHY SWINES.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 04:13:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please respect my damn mail headers.
And damn headers they
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are not allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim when you
are not willing to make the source code available to the maintainer
or do not want to let him decide what to do with your changes.
This is non-free
Richard -
Looking again at the Vim license, it is not clear whether it permits
distribution of executables of modified versions of Vim. I hope this
is permitted, since otherwise it would be rather a disaster.
What is your intention?
Distributing a modified version
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
