David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not at all. The exception only means that the license does not apply to
certain works. It does not say that those works cannot have any license at
Which means that there are no copyright permissions for the library,
and therefore those works, as
Martin Wolters [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
You can find a few open source projects on the web that use the so
called guile license which is the GPL + the following paragraph:
As a special exception, if you link this library with other files
to produce an executable, this
On Friday 30 November 2001 4:23 am, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the history of Free Software and Open Source (that Open
Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens) or marketing program
(Eric Raymond) for Free
On Friday 30 November 2001 02:46 am, David Woolley wrote:
Martin Wolters [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
You can find a few open source projects on the web that use the so
called guile license which is the GPL + the following paragraph:
As a special exception, if you link this
Given the history of Free Software and Open Source
(that Open Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens)
or marketing program (Eric Raymond) for Free
Software), can there be any question that a software
license the Free Software Foundation published is not
Open Source?
FSF may never seek OSI
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the history of Free Software and Open Source (that Open
Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens) or marketing program
(Eric Raymond) for Free Software), can there be any question that
a software license the
To whom it may concern:
You can find a few open source projects on the web that use the so
called guile license which is the GPL + the following paragraph:
As a special exception, if you link this library with other files
to produce an executable, this library does not by itself
7 matches
Mail list logo
