On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Tobias Peters wrote:
It's time to celebrate and get the KDE packages back into the dist:
http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/gpl.html
Special thanks to Joseph Carter who told them all the time where the
problems were.
Don't thank me. I had
I don't either--but that is not the point. The point is that the U of
W has actually threatened to sue the FSF for distributing a modified
version of a program that was released under the same words.
Personally, I'm still in the process of confirming this.
I hope that the U of
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they
too ask permission (We do expect and appreciate...). Non-free. If
Hi everyone.
Just joined the list and I'd *really* appreciate your advice on the part of the
GPL that allows for exclusion of identifiable sections (i.e. section 2).
The situation is:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write
There's no legal difference between Debian and people who recieve
it from us. [Legally, there's no such entity as Debian.]
Nor is there a difference from the viewpoint of our social contract.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Then why do we have DSFG #8
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:13:30 +0100
From: Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, you wrote:
snipped my stuff
Um.. debian-legal doesn't engage in handing out legal advice.
We're focussed on whether
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000, Mike Cunningham wrote:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which
would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to
release the
Scripsit Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then why do we have DSFG #8 `License Must Not Be Specific to Debian'
if there is no Debian?
There *is* a Debian. But it's not a legal *person*, it's a *work*.
It is possible to write up a license that says, for example, that
copies of program X may
Scripsit Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server
component which would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I
understand that we would need to release the
9 matches
Mail list logo
