On Mon, 30, Aug, 2004 at 01:16:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen spoke thus..
Canonical answer: Yes, that's GPL compatible. The GPL requires
*specific* plain markings: the dates of any change. Misrepresentation
is illegal anyway, everywhere that matters. Anyone fulfilling the
terms of the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:50:13PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
More fundamentally, my argument has been that GPL v2 only means only
under the terms of GPL v2, which includes the later version option.
That option is only available if the copyright holder has made it available
in the license grant.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
there's nothing you can do to prevent that. [Your distribution can
be only under
Mark Hymers wrote:
A wdiff between this and the VTK license shows that just the names of
the contributors have been changed (as you'd expect). It appears to be
a modified BSD license (i.e. without advertising clause) with one extra
clause:
* Modified source versions must be plainly marked
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
there's nothing you can do to prevent
5 matches
Mail list logo
