On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> Does the FAQ answer specifically say that you are not allowed to
> distribute them together?
GPLv2 section 3 does:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in ei
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> I don't see a statement saying that it is strictly GPLv2. Yes, he
> says GPLv2, but he doesn't say that there is no possibility to use a
> later version if you wish.
I was going off of the COPYING file and his repeated specific demands to
On 20-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:
| The CLN website links to the GPLv3, but COPYING inside the latest CLN
| package lists the license as GPLv2 only.
The normal place to put the "or any later version" clause is in each
source file. The COPYING file typically just contains the text of the
license
On 20-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:
| On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
|
| > It seems there is already a FAQ about this issue:
| >
| > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
| >
| > so I still don't understand what the problem is.
|
|
| The FAQ entry
The CLN website links to the GPLv3, but COPYING inside the latest CLN
package lists the license as GPLv2 only. In thread that was linked to, the
CLN author states that the CLN license is GPLv2 (only).
http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/cln-list/2009-April/000506.html
GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:29 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> It seems there is already a FAQ about this issue:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
>
> so I still don't understand what the problem is.
Already pointed this out. See the answer here:
http://www.ginac.de/pip
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:23 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> I can't see how the quoted clause implies this restriction.
>
> My understanding is that the quoted clause from the GPL is intended to
> allow you to link with "system components" which might be distributed
> under GPL-incompatible terms and
On 20-Apr-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| This case definitely isn't unique to CLN/GINAC, though my personal
| opinion is that the VC++ libraries are part of the compilation process
| and if a static build was used there wouldn't be any question so I don't
| see why the case is different with the
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
> I am very much in favor of getting an opinion from licens...@fsf.org,
> who's going to do it?
I will. Question: Would people rather have octave-dev and CLN-list on the
CC list of my e-mail to the FSF, or should I just post their response?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2009, Michael Goffioul wrote:
>
> | On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
> | wrote:
> | > Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
> | > allegedly violation of GPLv2?
> |
> | This paragrap
>> On 20-Apr-2009, Shai Ayal wrote:
>>
>> | I think the problem is distributing the VC++ runtime libs, which are
>> | microsoft's equivalent of glibc, and which are certainly non-gpl
>>
>> Can they reasonably be considered a system component that is part of
>> the OS? If so, then I don't see a pro
John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2009, Shai Ayal wrote:
>
> | I think the problem is distributing the VC++ runtime libs, which are
> | microsoft's equivalent of glibc, and which are certainly non-gpl
>
> Can they reasonably be considered a system component that is part of
> the OS? If so, then I d
On 20-Apr-2009, Shai Ayal wrote:
| I think the problem is distributing the VC++ runtime libs, which are
| microsoft's equivalent of glibc, and which are certainly non-gpl
Can they reasonably be considered a system component that is part of
the OS? If so, then I don't see a problem unless the ter
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:23 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2009, Michael Goffioul wrote:
>
> | On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
> | wrote:
> | > Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
> | > allegedly violation of GPLv2?
> |
> | This paragrap
On 20-Apr-2009, Michael Goffioul wrote:
| On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
| wrote:
| > Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
| > allegedly violation of GPLv2?
|
| This paragraph from GPLv2
|
| ==
| The source code for a work means the preferred
Le 20/04/2009 à 14:17, Michael Goffioul a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
> > allegedly violation of GPLv2?
>
> This paragraph from GPLv2
>
> ==
> The source code for a work means t
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Alain Baeckeroot
wrote:
>> ==
>> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>> making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
>> code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
>> associated interf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
> Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
> allegedly violation of GPLv2?
This paragraph from GPLv2
==
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an e
Out of curiosity, would be interesting to understand exactly why this is
allegedly violation of GPLv2?
br Kusti
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just for the information, I've been asked by the CLN developer
> (CLN is a deps of GiNaC and the symbolic package) to stop
> distributing binary versions of CLN in th
Hi all,
Just for the information, I've been asked by the CLN developer
(CLN is a deps of GiNaC and the symbolic package) to stop
distributing binary versions of CLN in the same installer as
VC++ runtime libs, as this is a violation of GPLv2.
Future binary Windows/VC++ versions of octave won't inc
20 matches
Mail list logo
