http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/the-moglen-meeting-happened/
-
The Moglen meeting happened
November 7th, 2006
Ive confirmed that. But no word from the professor. Novell is supposed
to put out some kind of expanded statement regarding the GPL in the next
day or two. Not sure
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll try. But slowly, okay?
Nope, still don't know what the point of your email was.
The point was first sale aka Erschöpfung aka exhaustion,
stupid. Kapis?
Please reply on usenet (I'm posting this to gnu.misc.discuss
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If you are you must comply with the terms of the library license but your
You must not. First sale, stupid.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
No. If you are not distributing the library you need do nothing special.
Thanks, John. This clarifies things and makes a lot of sense.
Beware that the FSF (including their fierce legal acumen Eben) disagrees
with uncle Hasler, xp_newbie.
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1851
--
What we can do, those who believe in freedom, those who use GNU/Linux,
or those who everywhere who believe in free markets and reject gangsters
and thugs and the destruction such people do to society? First and
foremost we must stand together
http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/07/perens_on_ms_novell/
It's a case of 'Damn the people who write the software', he told us.
Was the deal even legitimate, we wondered?
Novell is violating the GPL, he tells us. It's up to the Free
Software Foundation, which owns the copyright, to pursue this.
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331
---
The company is very close to announcing that it will put the mobile (ME)
and standard (SE) editions of the Java platform into the GNU General
Public License (GPL), with the Java Enterprise Edition and
---
Novell got $240 million from MS for SUSE subscriptions and $108 million
for patent something
The Novell 8-K is up with some details about their sellout to MS.
Microsoft bought $240 million worth of SUSE subscriptions that they can
resell or shred or do whatever they want.
Novell got
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
---
Novell got $240 million from MS for SUSE subscriptions and $108 million
for patent something
The Novell 8-K is up with some details about their sellout to MS.
Microsoft bought $240 million worth of SUSE subscriptions that they can
http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/06/microsoft_novell_analysis/page2.html
---
IBM has been nowhere to be found. And the FSF's General Counsel Eben
Moglen hasn't helped the cause by permitting this thought bubble to
escape, and be recorded by a VNU reporter:
Maybe it will turn out that
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Now Novell is supposed to be an Open Source outlet, and they are
_receiving_ net money for somewhat fuzzy patent/indemnification claims
Somewhat fuzzy? Oh dear GNutian dak, recall that Groklaw PJ's partner
OSRM and Eben's underling Dan (Ravicher of SFLC) made a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Beware that the FSF (including their fierce legal acumen Eben) disagrees
with uncle Hasler, xp_newbie.
http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html
http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-75.html
Your only way out (in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Alexander, I must admit that when I first read the links you provided,
I got even more confused. But then, I noticed that all of these links
refer to GPL, not LGPL. :)
Forget LGPL.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
--
The LGPL Alternative
[...] an
The context is this:
http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=41715
---
Novell-Microsoft partnership faces GPL hurdle
By Tom Sanders, 6 November 2006 09:32 AEST Operating Systems
The patent cross licensing deal that Microsoft and Novell unveiled last
Thursday will be
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
That is, if:
1. I link to the library *dynamically* and
2. I *do not modify* the library in any way and
3. I fully acknowledge that I am using that library
4. I include the library (in a DLL form) in the installation
package (as a
In comments to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461
(Details of Novell-MS Pact - The SEC filing)
---
The Linux kernel seriously needs to be forked to a GPL v3 version, those kernel
contributors that don't want to contribute their code as GPL v3 should have
their code
In (article and) comments to
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461
(Details of Novell-MS Pact - The SEC filing)
PJ:
-
Now do you get it, that Tivoization is a metaphor for creative ways to
make the GPL toothless? It's a trend, not an isolated event. There's
money to be
John Hasler wrote:
Yes. Terekhov is troll, deliberately trying to confuse you. Ignore him.
Indeed, I got very confused by his remarks, especially when he referred
me to GPL stuff, which is *not* what I asked about.
However, his last comment You seem to forgot provided that the terms
permit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Which means that I have to grant my customers access to my source
code???
And GPL your wife and kids. Then http://www.gnu.org/help/donate.html.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alex writes:
Well... if I *dynamically* link to the library, is it considered combine
or link a work that uses the Library with the Library to produce a work
containing portions of the Library ?
If so, then the 4 conditions that I listed in my last message as
complying with the LGPL license
20 matches
Mail list logo
