On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 12:01:55AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> With the exception of nontrivial macro definitions and inline
> functions (which do not appear in "mainstream" header files for C)
> what the header file contains is irrelevant, because it does not
> appear (neither verbatim NOR
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this is flawed. A header file consists of
> * function names,
> * function arguments,
> * macro definition,
> * inline code,
> * type declarations
> Furthermore, those are the realization of a concept, which constitutes a
> copyrightable amo
Hello,
some people tried to compare header files with words in a dictionary.
I think this is flawed. A header file consists of
* function names,
* function arguments,
* macro definition,
* inline code,
* type declarations
Furthermore, those are the realization of a concept, which constitutes a
Hello,
one requirement in the DFSG is that Free Software may not restrict the use
of it.
This means, you may link dynamically against Free Software, even with
proprietary software. You may load shared object code at run time, too.
But dynamically linking usually involves inclusion of the librar
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
> > That is a postulate for which you have provided no arguments. The
> > header files are no more a part of the objec
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 07:40:14PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
>
> I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
gcc does include the header files in the c
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
>
> That is a postulate for which you have provided no arguments. The
> header files are no more a part of the object file than this article
> is legally derived fro
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 01:04:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 12:53:18PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Please keep in touch regarding
> > any changes you might be making to the TiK license.
>
> Well, we have talked abo
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 12:53:18PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Please keep in touch regarding
> any changes you might be making to the TiK license.
Well, we have talked about going to GPL for a while now. This will probably
finally make us do it. :
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> To help resolve these issues, clause ii) could be removed or be rephrased
> to restrict only the use of AOL's trademark and online service. Since
> these restrictions are already implicit in the AOL Instant Messanger
> service agreement, perhaps this term could be removed
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 08:36:57AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for the comments and feedback about the license. I think we would
> like to see our license allow Debian to include TiK, although we would
> neither promote or hinder such an inclusion.
>
Thanks for considering this. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Just to clarify, Debian is only concerned with the license inside
> the source code. The "service" license inside of the LICENSE file,
> doesn't matter?
As far as I can see that license only sets up the terms for using the
servers AOL provide. Even if one does not a
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 04:18:59PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > That's non-free... ;> Doesn't permit derived works other than
> > translations.
[..]
YES, I misread it. It's not non-free.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's non-free... ;> Doesn't permit derived works other than
> translations.
You seem to have overlooked this:
|Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
| manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, that the e
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At this point I think I'm about to start suggesting these companies like
> Netscape, Apple, and now AT&T just shoot their lawyers and release
> source to the public domain. They've become so paranoid about
> completely imaginary legal liabilities that they'
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Really? A dynamically linked executable does not include code from the
> > library, so it would take something more argument-like to convince me,
> > at least ;-)
> No, you are confusing it with another case Wichert listed.
Is there any technical
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 13:46:12 +0100, J.H.M. Dassen quoted:
>Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
> manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, that the entire resulting
> derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical
> to
Thanks for the comments and feedback about the license. I think we would
like to see our license allow Debian to include TiK, although we would
neither promote or hinder such an inclusion.
Just to clarify, Debian is only concerned with the license inside
the source code. The "service" license
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 01:46:12PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 10:37:12 -0500, Fredrick Paul Eisele wrote:
> [template copyleft for manual]
>
> This is what's used in a lot of GNU documentation; sweet, short, simple.
[..]
That's non-free... ;> Doesn't permit derived wo
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 10:37:12 -0500, Fredrick Paul Eisele wrote:
[template copyleft for manual]
This is what's used in a lot of GNU documentation; sweet, short, simple.
Copyright .
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice an
I'm hoping you can help me out a bit with regards to your TiK AOL Instant
Messanger client software. I'm a volunteer for Debian, an organization that
produces a free GNU/Linux distribution. As part of my work for Debian, I
package software that I find useful for inclusion in their distribution.
I
Greg Stark writes:
> They've become so paranoid about completely imaginary legal liabilities
> that they're trying to release code under shrink-wrap licenses and call
> it "free". The very concept is laughable.
> ...
> So here's the latest, for the djvu reference library, I haven't even bothered
>
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> If you are bothered about the presence of the original novel, you can say
> the following: The book only can be opened at all if the original novel
> is present in the room you are. Does this now make a difference?
Yes.
> Why?
Because in this case the book does not con
23 matches
Mail list logo
