On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > > you stand, it'll cost you
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > > you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is
> > > > fine. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine.
> > If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to
> > you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine.
If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to
you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is
fine. If it isn't worth $15K
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works.
>
> For example, suppose I ship you a tarball that has the source & binaries
> for both a
> If the free software community understood and accepted this, by the
way,
> then I think that it removes the need for the LGPL, it's redundant.
What is when compiling a DOS/DJGPP programme? IIRC it is statically
linked
to the libc-dos. IIRC the LGPL here prevents the remaining DOS programme
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > As part of our operating system / networking research, we have
> > written a loadable kernel module for Linux. We would like to
> > distribute the source but we're not sure if our development
> > office will allow us to release it
> As part of our operating system / networking research, we have
> written a loadable kernel module for Linux. We would like to
> distribute the source but we're not sure if our development
> office will allow us to release it under the GPL (at least
> initially). Before meeting with the
It appears that Linus Torvalds has stated that it is possible
to have a non-GPL'd (or even binary only) Linux device driver
kernel module dynamically linked to the kernel "assuming all
the nasty requirements are met." [see reference below]
What, specifically, are the "nasty requirements?"
*
It appears that Linus Torvalds has stated that it is possible
to have a non-GPL'd (or even binary only) Linux device driver
kernel module dynamically linked to the kernel assuming all
the nasty requirements are met. [see reference below]
What, specifically, are the nasty requirements?
* Is it
As part of our operating system / networking research, we have
written a loadable kernel module for Linux. We would like to
distribute the source but we're not sure if our development
office will allow us to release it under the GPL (at least
initially). Before meeting with the lawyers,
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
As part of our operating system / networking research, we have
written a loadable kernel module for Linux. We would like to
distribute the source but we're not sure if our development
office will allow us to release it under the
If the free software community understood and accepted this, by the
way,
then I think that it removes the need for the LGPL, it's redundant.
What is when compiling a DOS/DJGPP programme? IIRC it is statically
linked
to the libc-dos. IIRC the LGPL here prevents the remaining DOS programme
code
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
For example, suppose I ship you a tarball that has the source binaries
for both a GPLed
16 matches
Mail list logo
