Nathan Whitehead wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what makes you think the documentation is licensed under LGPL?
The documentation is included in the pygame release in the directory
"docs/". All the information about licensing I have found for
In a message of Thu, 22 May 2008 14:32:16 +1200, Greg Ewing writes:
>Nathan Whitehead wrote:
>> I wasn't thinking of having references to the
>> main text in the appendix, more just a quick reference to thumb
>> through while you're programming.
>
>If it's self-contained, I think you'd have a case
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what makes you think the documentation is licensed under LGPL?
The documentation is included in the pygame release in the directory
"docs/". All the information about licensing I have found for pygame
is that it is LGPL
In a message of Thu, 22 May 2008 12:45:51 +1200, Greg Ewing writes:
>Casey Duncan wrote:
>> I'm not a license expert (intentionally), but I'm not not sure the LGP
>L
>> makes much sense as a documentation license since you can't really lin
>k
>> to documentation
>
>Including it as an integral p
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It appears the documentation is LGPL.
LGPL doesn't make a lot of sense for documentation, it refers to binaries
and linking and source code which don't really apply (the Gnu FDL or Free
Documentation License is what
Nathan Whitehead wrote:
I wasn't thinking of having references to the
main text in the appendix, more just a quick reference to thumb
through while you're programming.
If it's self-contained, I think you'd have a case for it
being "aggregation" rather than "linking".
Maybe it could be a separa
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure how you'd satisfy the requirement to allow
> users to upgrade to a new version, though, if it's
> something like an index that points to other things
> in the book.
That's a good point. I wasn't thinking of having r
Casey Duncan wrote:
I'm not a license expert (intentionally), but I'm not not sure the LGPL
makes much sense as a documentation license since you can't really link
to documentation
Including it as an integral part of another book would
seem to be the documentation equivalent of "linking",
as
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the appendix
would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book
would not be LGPL.
Seems to me that this would be in accordance with the
spiri
I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the LGPL allows
open-source code to be used in closed-source applications.
To Quote the article, "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your
next library":
"using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; "
For the really
I'm not a license expert (intentionally), but I'm not not sure the
LGPL makes much sense as a documentation license since you can't
really link to documentation (not in the binary linking sense anyway,
web links notwithstanding). So the distinction between LGPL and GPL
for documentation is
Yes, sorry I thought that LGPL was a derivate from GPL
2008/5/22 James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> LGPL is different than GPL.
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:38:15AM +0200, OsKaR wrote:
> >I'm not an licesnse expert, like you, but I think (or maybe I read it
> >somewhere) that if you use
LGPL is different than GPL.
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:38:15AM +0200, OsKaR wrote:
>I'm not an licesnse expert, like you, but I think (or maybe I read it
>somewhere) that if you use something with GPL license all the derivated
>works would be GPL too, however the best idea is to ask a
I'm not an licesnse expert, like you, but I think (or maybe I read it
somewhere) that if you use something with GPL license all the derivated
works would be GPL too, however the best idea is to ask a really expert.
2008/5/21 Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would like to include a quick
You'd probably need to ask a Lawyer - or ask your publisher to ask a Lawyer.
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to include a quick reference to pygame functions in an
> appendix of my book. Would it be permissible to use the documentation
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
