On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 08:48:19PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> People only go to court if they think they can invalidate
> the license - it's a testiment to the GPL that so few
> actions actually make it that far.
>
> Eventually someone will make similar mistakes with GPLv3
> that were made w
Hi Jermey,
Thanks for helping me understand all the a bit better.
According to discussions on the LLVM mailing list (sorry I don't have the link)
when LLVM's libc++ was released, a number of people commented saying that Apple
employees are currently unable to work on GPLv3 software, possibly du
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 05:16:53AM +1100, Stephen Norman wrote:
> I'm not sure if you could say that Apple doesn't like GPLv3, so that is
> spreading FUD there as well. Regardless, my guess would be that their legal
> department has made a case that it might open them for some legal action
> so
Forget our war of words. It looks like Apple and the FSF can't get along at the
moment.
http://lwn.net/Articles/405417/
I apologise for my confusion as it does appear to be a problem between Apple
and the FSF.
Cheers,
Stephen
On 31/10/2010, at 5:29 AM, John H Terpstra wrote:
> On 10/30/201
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Stephen Norman wrote:
> Apologies for the previous message. Its what happens at 4 in the morning!
>
> On 31/10/2010, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
> I've read and Googled quiet extensively regarding GPLv3 before posting and
> find it offensive for anyone to
On 10/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephen Norman wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2010, at 1:03 AM, John H Terpstra wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
>>> This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not
>>> being able to find it.
>>
>> No apology needed. We can discuss this topic
Apologies for the previous message. Its what happens at 4 in the morning!
On 31/10/2010, at 4:47 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
> Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to spread FUD about Samba or the GPL.
> I'm just trying to understand how the license changes may or may not effect
> the software I
Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to spread FUD about Samba or the GPL. I'm
just trying to understand how the license changes may or may not effect the
software I work with on a daily basis.
On 31/10/2010, at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 04:00:21AM +1100, Stephen
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 04:00:21AM +1100, Stephen Norman wrote:
>
> "Prevention" may have been a poor choice of words here. I guess what I'm
> asking is, if Apple was to ship Samba 3.2 or above with their OS, what other
> parts of the OS (if any) would need to be released under GPLv3? For instan
On 31/10/2010, at 1:03 AM, John H Terpstra wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
>> This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not being
>> able to find it.
>
> No apology needed. We can discuss this topic on this list.
>
>> I was wondering if someone on the li
On 10/30/2010 02:48 AM, Stephen Norman wrote:
> This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not being
> able to find it.
No apology needed. We can discuss this topic on this list.
> I was wondering if someone on the list can please explain the
> relationship that GPLv3 has in preve
This may have been raised before and if so I apologise for not being able to
find it.
I was wondering if someone on the list can please explain the relationship that
GPLv3 has in preventing Apple from distributing updated builds with their
operating systems. I've read over the GPLv3 (I'm not la
12 matches
Mail list logo