On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:41:34AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
If the copyright holder includes a copy of the GPL but writes that the
software is licensed under the GPL plus additional restrictions, then
this is not illegal as far as I know (there's nothing in the GPL
that prevents it
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 07:00:32PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
Why is this a problem? Seems to me that it is their right to do so, if
they make a contribution that nobody else wants to be without, they have
earned the moral right to insult the original author.
This has all been debated at
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:42:16PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption that
compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed.
Would this be sufficient for Debian?
The above doesn't actually add anything to the
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Brian May wrote:
Quoting README, in particular the entire LICENSING section:
[Snip text about Hans Reiser assuming the right to re-license contributed
work if it's not clearly labelled otherwise. I don't have an opinion on
the legality of it, but it doesn't sound
4 matches
Mail list logo
