Shane Martin Coughlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Exception to the GPL:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted=20
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that=
are
required for its proper functioning,
scripsit Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanasis Kinias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been in communication with upstream, and he says that the only
thing he intends to prohibit is someone charging money for his free
program
Like, say, putting the program on a storage medium and
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:57:34 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Wait, are you saying that you consider DFSG-free to require transfer
of copyright to the original author(s) in order to redistribute
modified versions of a work?
No. That's only necessary
Thanasis Kinias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
scripsit Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Like, say, putting the program on a storage medium and charging
people for it? Or charging money to install the program? Or
charging money to include it as part of a service?
(1) I believe all these are
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMO, free software cannot force people to do the first item
(maintain a clear copyright ownership path).
Agreed. I'm talking about what should be accepted in packages
distributed by Debian, not about forcing anyone to do anything.
It's of course
I am working on an audio application called Ogg Frog
(http://www.oggfrog.com/). It is not released yet, but I hope to
release the first version later this fall.
I am having trouble deciding which version of the GPL I will release it
under. It has two GPL dependencies so far, libmad and
6 matches
Mail list logo
