Josh Ockert wrote:
I'm not so sure you guys have this right.
No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain
BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the
On Friday 1 July 2005 07:32, Josh Ockert wrote:
On 6/30/05, Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for top posting...
The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion
is due to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very
disputed as in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck Swiger
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:47 AM
To: Danny Pansters
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Also note that the Open Source Definition
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[ ... ]
The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and
the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can
pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing
terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders
right to
snipped
I'd like to say that my mail to trolltech was before yours and I haven't had
an answer yet save for an automated reply. Perhaps I'm not important
enough :)
I'm not sure if I want this to go on the list (and archive) but this is what I
sent them, and yes, I was voicing concern but I
I'm not so sure you guys have this right.
No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain
BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
Sorry for top posting...
The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due
to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as
in might be void.
What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the
case when I use
On 6/30/05, Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for top posting...
The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due
to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as
in might be void.
What GPL quotes can be used (remember
PS - Not that I'm claiming that BSD is a total giveaway, but as long
as the required notices are intact, there's nothing wrong with BSDL
code being imported to GPL code.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Folks,
I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page
(http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html)
specifically states several times that if using the free version one is
required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a
requirement to
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 12:30, Danny Pansters wrote:
Folks,
I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page
(http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html)
specifically states several times that if using the free version one is
required to release their own
Danny Pansters wrote:
I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page
(http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html)
specifically states several times that if using the free version one is
required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a
Hey Chuck, thanks for answering.
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 16:47, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Danny Pansters wrote:
I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web
page
(http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html)
specifically states several times that if using
Danny Pansters wrote:
Hey Chuck, thanks for answering.
No problem. (I'm not completely convinced this thread belongs on
freebsd-questions, but I don't know where else to move it to. :-)
Anyway, I contacted someone at TrollTech with pretty much what I said in my
last email, and got a
14 matches
Mail list logo
