On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:18:37 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes No. For example, a Free Software author wants to warn user
for a specific usage of the software. The classical example is a
RFID software that can be used as a tool against privacy. He adds a
warning note
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a
high-precision digital recording (with lots of random noise in
the low bits) and D is a compressed version: clearly A is
source of D,
I would argue that D is an excerpt of A.
If someone
Hi,
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license? I discovered one of them which
could be problematic.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license?
Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alone elisp code that only
uses Emacs internals. At that point you are okay, treating Emacs has an
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license?
Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alone elisp code that only
uses Emacs internals.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:21:48PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:16, Joey Hess wrote:
10) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. You agree that any lawsuit
arising under or relating to this License shall be maintained in
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license?
Pretty much. It is possible to write
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Err, I thought the license of interpreted programs had to be
compatible with the license of interpreters
I don't think so.
You are right. There answer is there:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
No,
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 03 Juni 2003 19:12, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a
high-precision digital recording (with lots of random
noise in the low bits) and D is a compressed version:
clearly
Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided
not to discuss that here.
Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that?
Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it
(they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit).
RMS said:
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated.
OK... but...
I've explained
11 matches
Mail list logo
