On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 02:15:33AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I'm not in the mood to deal with it tonight. =p It's 02:12 here and am
> somewhat annoyed by the wording they used there, even though I realize
> what they are trying to do isn't what we're looking at here.
>
> Of course part of th
Buddha Buck writes:
> The GPL does restrict what licenses that can be used on third-party
> libraries linked to the software. In order to link a library to GPLed
> software, it must be distributable under a GPL-compatable license, or it
> must be a system library normally distributed with the syst
Ben Collins writes:
> Just because they aren't going to sue you does not mean that you don't
> break the license. If I say, you cannot distribute my source at all, but
> that I wont enforce it, doesn't mean you are allowed to.
A license is nothing but a promise not to sue provided certain conditio
Henning Makholm writes:
> If you dont consider it "villainous" to set up things so it looks like
> we're not doing any indpendent development but simply copying their
> advances, I doubt we can find common ground...
I don't follow you.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse
Henning Makholm writes:
> I just got a possibly better idea: how about something along the
> lines of (informal language here, to be made more explicit if it works):
> a) you can distribute your modified version under this licence if
> you send us a patch for your modification.
> b) if you do n
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I convinced a friend to release his software under a free
> > license, but he wanted protection in case he later decide to
> > commercialize a version of his software. I suggested the Qt
> > license whi
[I'm not subscribed to -legal, please CC answers]
Le Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 06:20:23PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivait:
> Please post the license and the translation to debian-legal.
Ok, here is it :
-=-=- french license -=-=-
SYMPA - Système de multipostage automatique
Copyright
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be a solution to add clauses that if someone for some occult
> reason does not want to send us that simple email they have to
> distribute their modification as patches? That would at least make
> being villaneous more difficult than playing f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> One involves releasing your program under a free license. The other does
> not. If you can achieve your goals with a free license, why not do
> so?
Would it be a solution to add clauses that if someone for some occult
reason does not want to send us that simple email
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 06:50:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The Qt 0.92 license still suffers from the patch clause. While people
> > > do consider this `free', we also consider it pretty painful (ie, it
> > > seems to rule out CVS trees, it /does/ rule out forking, and so on).
> > No it d
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 11:34:59PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 02:28:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I convinced a friend to release his software under a free
> > > license, but he wanted protection in case he later decide to
> > > commercialize a version of his sof
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 02:28:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I convinced a friend to release his software under a free
> > license, but he wanted protection in case he later decide to
> > commercialize a version of his software. I suggested the Qt
> > license which was at version 0.92 at the
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I convinced a friend to release his software under a free
> license, but he wanted protection in case he later decide to
> commercialize a version of his software. I suggested the Qt
> license which was at version 0.92 at the tim
> 1. Some Sun lawyer was overzealous.
> 2. Sun is making a serious attempt to revive interface copyright.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
It was Ean's conclusion. I don't know what Sun is actually doing.
I read it as putting the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > I convinced a friend to release his software under a free license, but he
> > wanted protection in case he later decide to commercialize a version of
> > his software.
>
> Protection from what?
Suppose it's under GPL and people send it la
15 matches
Mail list logo
