Accidentally omitted a key word:
> Quibble: It wasn't Apple but rather NeXT, Inc., and the matter came
> nowhere near litigation. FSF merely brought to NeXT's attention their
> need to cease violating gcc copyright by either shipping the ObjC
^ di
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> I would second that. I would add that there is a huge difference
> between, say, the FSF suing Apple over an Objective C plugin to the
> GCC and large for-profit software and service houses suing eachother
> over the license.
Quibble: It wasn't
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> The parties didn't wish to contest whether they were in compliance or not.
> They instead took the route of requesting forgiveness for infringement as a
> settlement or before a suit was filed, since the terms to get
rom: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:41 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Linking question
Larry Rosen wrote:
Is anything else required under the GPL or
Larry Rosen wrote:
Is anything else required under the GPL or by the Busybox copyright owners?
Specifically, is any of my client's proprietary software subject to disclosure?
Must my client help anyone -- through product documentation or the disclosure
of his proprietary code that he has purpo
:06 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Linking question
>
> Larry,
>
> I know of multiple parties who have settled by Ceasing to manufacture
> the product or Releasing a new version of their binary software alon
Larry,
I know of multiple parties who have settled by
Ceasing to manufacture the product
or
Releasing a new version of their binary software along with complete and
corresponding source code.
Some of these cases involved replacing binaries that were static linked
to LGPL software with binarie
Bruce Perens wrote:
> Despite the fact that Larry and those law review folks are sure about
> the linking question, every party who would benefit from a case going
> according to Larry's interpretation has settled their case with the GPL
> licensor rather than invest what is necessary for a court t
8 matches
Mail list logo
