Hi,
There is some nice code here:
http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/
When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like
licenses and refused to create one. But:
pesco It's mine, but if you manage to get your hands on it, keep it
for Christ's sake!
...
Heffalump the key
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
Of course it is possible for proprietary software to compete with free
software without employing GPL components. It's also possible for one
commercial spreadsheet to compete with
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:12:58 + MJ Ray wrote:
Mark Brown For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had
vanished - Francesco Poli So did I.
Thanks for that
You are welcome! :)
and the comments off-list. What would the period
summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If the public benefit of interoperability outweighs the harm done to a
copyright holder by permitting competitive use of the interface they
created, how can it not outweigh the harm to him of permitting
cooperative use?
Why
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I do want my government and my cellphone to run on Free Software,
and neither will happen in my lifetime if there isn't a commercially
viable transition strategy.
If you want to work towards a situation where everything is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you
build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse.
Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Debian
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The GPL puts restrictions on whole works.
True.
Requires to run is a useful heuristic to determine what a whole
work is.
Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
First: There is no such legal entity as Debian which is doing such
things. Debian is a trademark of SPI, and there are people who use
that trademark, but that's not the same thing.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:55:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
You can replace Debian with SPI if it makes
Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
You missed the part about Eclipse requiring Kaffe to run.
The license on Eclipse doesn't make an issue of this.
The license on Kaffe
Why assume that interoperability is the only benefit from release under
copyleft?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:45:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that the public benefit of
interoperability, used in a number of the decisions that I've cited to
justify
Walter Landry wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are Eclipse
is aggregated with Kaffe and Eclipse is run by Kaffe.
And once again, you miss the point that Eclipse and Kaffe together
make a whole work.
The make an aggregate work.
11 matches
Mail list logo
