Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any collection of bits is software. The GPL works very well for any
collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
for provision of source code and the nature of permission to
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
supposed to
On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
could have been considered not
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL
Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.
Andrew
On 11/5/05, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
So if you want, you can use it under the
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:13:34AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It's easy as pie. You don't release it; the *company* releases it. Use
the usual How to Apply These Terms to Your New Program, but put the
*company* name in name of author
[snip]
Put that notice in the software. Get the
Please don't top-post.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:42:10AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.
I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take
my program,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take
my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
(Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
but I could do it.)
I
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code
By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do
whatever he pleases. In
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.
Andrew
On 11/5/05, Arc
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:20:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code
By developer, do
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:13:34 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it
does.
program name Copyright year copyright holder
program name is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of
There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
(My impression is he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
his name to it?.) Just FYI.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote:
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work
dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the
copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately
distributed under one of the licenses
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Arc Riley wrote:
What makes you think Arc isn't my real name? It's a gaelic name that died
out
after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by
happy christian names. There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity
On 11/5/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. The preamble explains the FSF's
goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor.
If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick
against the copyright
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code
By developer, do you mean
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still
Here's a response from an FSF volunteer:
-- begin --
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 04 22:35:22 2005]:
Are copyright holders who license software under the GPL compelled to
release source code?
e.g.
Person A writes a program.
Person A says it is under the GPL.
Person A gives a copy of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
