Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:47:01PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL & 4-clause software. to me, calling them "incompatible" such
that you refuse to link apps & libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mar
Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in t
> the only problem with the Big List file is that i'd expect a lot of it
> not to apply to debian/netbsd. only those parts in sys/, lib/libc/ and
> sundry programs ... which is probably 90% of the list anyway.
A quick grep of libc reveals that it's mostly either The NetBSD foun
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:47:01PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
> GPL & 4-clause software. to me, calling them "incompatible" such
> that you refuse to link apps & libraries because of it is way over
> stepping the mark, espcially i
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:00:22PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>
>It's the INSTALL.txt file, not a copyright file. I have not (yet) been able
>to find a copyright or license file that directly applies to the sources
>in CVS, either on the website or in CVS itself. Anyone who knows w
It's the INSTALL.txt file, not a copyright file. I have not (yet) been able
to find a copyright or license file that directly applies to the sources
in CVS, either on the website or in CVS itself. Anyone who knows where the
heck the thing is hiding, do tell. :)
look in src/distrib/
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
> > does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
> > of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in the s
as far as i'm aware, there are very conflicting views on mixing
GPL & 4-clause software. to me, calling them "incompatible" such
that you refuse to link apps & libraries because of it is way over
stepping the mark, espcially if you are linking GPL apps against
a BSD system -- are you going to
On Oct 14, Joel Baker wrote:
> Er. Given that 'libc' is under the 4-clause license, if this is true... or
> does that not apply to 'system' libraries? NetBSD certainly has a fair bit
> of GPLed code, including dist/gnu in the source tree.
Hmm. This could get ugly quickly; my gut feeling is that s
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:20:06AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 15, matthew green wrote:
> >NetBSD. Licensing.
> >
> >Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
> >file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
> >t
On Oct 15, matthew green wrote:
>NetBSD. Licensing.
>
>Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
>file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
>the NetBSD project (in two forms, no less!)
>
>Pardon me while I sink
> it was my understanding the old 4 clause UCB license was DFSG
> happy, anyway.
Looks like it: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
Also, that old BSD advertising acknowledgement is very similar to Apache's
current license.
Jeremy C. Reed
...
NetBSD. Licensing.
Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
the NetBSD project (in two forms, no less!)
Pardon me while I sink into despair of ever untangling the mess,
NetBSD. Licensing.
Appears to be old (non-revised) BSD license... certainly the INSTALL.txt
file for 1.6 has lines at the beginning of the ungodly long section for
the NetBSD project (in two forms, no less!)
Pardon me while I sink into despair of ever untangling the mess, even if
we can use it (i
14 matches
Mail list logo
