--
Arnaldo Gomes dos Santos
Analista de Sistemas
This might be relevant if we planned on distributing only non-working copies
of Quagga.
The copies of Quagga that Debian distributes are non-working; try to execute a
Debian package...
Anyways, I'll repeat my earlier assertion: if working copies of Quagga do not
use functionality specific
Hi,
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
Please Cc: me since I'm not subscribed to this list.
Thanks,
Svante
--
To
On May 13, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Svante Signell wrote:
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
I could be wrong, but I see no
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges
upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of
what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also
nullifies any claims of contributory
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If he
violates the license by distributing said binaries, he is liable, not us.
This isn't nothing to do with us. We've done practically all the work
needed for the user to
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:06:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If
he
violates the license by distributing said binaries, he is liable, not us.
This isn't nothing to do
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, so what? How is building the package locally equivalent to
infringement?
Why did Napster decide to offer a billion dollars to the
recording industry, to settle their copyright suit?
Do you think they were just smoking crack?
Unlike us,
De: Raul Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
We have a license to distribute said material and we are
abiding by the terms of the license. You might as well say
that book
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:49:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, I have made that claim. I've even shown the commands
to issue to obtain evidence that we do so.
Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
pieces individually. But we sometimes don't
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
pieces individually. But we sometimes don't distribute the work
is not equivalent to we do not distribute the work.
And yet somehow this work can get on the user's
Raul wrote:
If we don't do that, we might cause someone or some group (perhaps
some of us) to get stuck with paying openssl.org some heavy
license fee, to release openssl under gpl compatible terms. Or,
maybe we'll create a situation requiring some other sort of
settlement. And, if that's
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:17:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
pieces individually. But we sometimes don't distribute the work
is not equivalent to we do not distribute
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you account for it getting onto user machines?
I'm done here.
That's fine.
You are obviously more interested in trolling
or spreading FUD than having a conversation.
That's not.
--
Raul
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
Hi,
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
Please
Sorry for making inroads to other peoples territories. I just wanted to
know if dual licensing is possible. Obviously is is not possible to
combine GPL and other licences, but why are people talking about it?
I've seen several notes about this on the web: Note that I have not
releasesd any (code
On 5/13/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've been rather consistently insulting for a number of days.
Oh, please. Like you've been Mr. Clean. You have been rude,
sarcastic, and dismissive from the very first message you
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are other specific statements which you found to be
insulting, please do let me know; it's possible that I have said
something else comparable to behest of the FSF for which a similar
apology is due.
Thanks, but I'll take the
18 matches
Mail list logo
