Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we know how much of the codebase
> will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors?
libjpeg, at the very least. libjpeg has been working with a perfectly
satisfactory BSD-style license since before GPL existed, and I will not
consider a
>Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do we know how much of the codebase
>> will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors?
>libjpeg, at the very least. libjpeg has been working with a perfectly
>satisfactory BSD-style license since before GPL existed, and I will not
>cons
>When it was announced as an intention it was said that input was being
>gathered. I've raised a number of issues where I believe the language of
>the Exhibit is flawed and where there are issues of derivative lockout
>amongst other things. So far none of those have been addressed
>definitiv
"Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Now, a BSDish component in a GPLish application is not a problem from
>> the point of view of the component's license.
> So, which provision or
> provisions of the libjpeg copying conditions do you claim are
> GPL incompatible?
None --- please rer
>"Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Now, a BSDish component in a GPLish application is not a problem from
>>> the point of view of the component's license.
>> So, which provision or
>> provisions of the libjpeg copying conditions do you claim are
>> GPL incompatible?
>None --- ple
At 01:53 10/02/2001 -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> >When it was announced as an intention it was said that input was being
> >gathered. I've raised a number of issues where I believe the language of
> >the Exhibit is flawed and where there are issues of derivative lockout
> >amongst other things
Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do we know how much of the codebase
> > will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors?
>
> libjpeg, at the very least. libjpeg has been working with a perfectly
> satisfactory BSD-style license since before GPL existe
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think it highly likely that at some point someone will claim that
> all components in Mozilla are shipped under GPL.
Please note that today, claims that Mozilla is shipped under
the NPL/MPL.
--
This message is protected by ROT0 encryption and the DMCA.
Reading is disallow
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do we know how much of the codebase
> > will have to be re-written in the face of balky contributors?
>
> libjpeg, at the very least. libjpeg has been working with a perfectly
> satisfactory BSD-style license since before GPL exi
I'm currently thinking of including a few simple image processing
functions based on those that I've found in sample Apple code. This code
is licensed thusly:
Copyright © 1984-1999 by Apple Computer, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
You may incorporate this Apple sampl
10 matches
Mail list logo
