Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not libraries)?
Otherwise, we would
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still
wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list.
Hi,
Several months ago, the Release Team contacted the GNOME Foundation to
know what should be done if a module proposed for inclusion in GNOME
requires a copyright assignment. There was no policy for this at that
time, so the Board discussed the topic with the Advisory Board and asked
Bradley
Hello everybody!
The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new
members:
* Randal Barlow
* Peter Hutterer
* Florian Müllner
* Garrett Michael LeSage
* Djavan
Em Sex, 2010-08-13 às 14:43 +0200, Tobias Mueller escreveu:
Hello everybody!
The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new
members:
* Randal Barlow
* Peter Hutterer
* Florian Müllner
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
Could you give examples
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which
El dv 13 de 08 de 2010 a les 10:12 -0400, en/na Shaun McCance va
escriure:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
Tomboy is LGPL2.
Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps
or plugin frameworks liberally to allow proprietary plugins.
We don't need a morality
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
Tomboy is LGPL2.
Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps
or plugin
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Sandy Armstrong
sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user
from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the
Hi!
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the
user doesn't then distribute the combination?
Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also
includes the freedom to use proprietary software if someone wants to.
Anyway, a.g.o will obviously only
It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user
from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same
time?
As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from
installing whatever they wish. The question at hand is what we
_suggest_
13 matches
Mail list logo
