[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less)
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?
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the license were GPL-compatible, I could license my changes under
the GPL, and never talk to the Vim maintainer. However, one of the
things that Bram wants to be able to do is relicense the whole thing
under a proprietary license. This is exactly
[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
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the license were GPL-compatible, I could license my changes under
the GPL, and never talk to the Vim maintainer. However, one of the
things that Bram wants to be able to do is relicense the whole thing
under a
Branden Robinson wrote:
Thanks very much for putting effort into this, Mr. Moolenaar. I know a
lot of people don't find it easy to deal with paranoid license freaks.
Thanks for taking a good look at the new text. I'll include most of
your suggestions.
You are also allowed to include
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Ah yes, I missed that last part. So it does seem to me that it is not
GPL compatible, as long as it wants to reserve the right to include
changes in future vim distributions, which themselves might be
released under
hi
I am not good at legal issues so I am cross posting this to
debian-legal
the problem: Debian Alpha is lacking a good browser
the solution: there is a version of Netscape 4.7-4
that was compiled by Compaq for Tru64; this version is
also distributed by RedHat for Alpha; some people have
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Ah yes, I missed that last part. So it does seem to me that it is not
GPL compatible, as long as it wants to reserve the right to include
changes in future vim distributions, which themselves
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
