On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 05:14:46PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Your curt replies to detailed, reasoned arguments just leave me
> guessing as to what you mean, which is why I will stop wasting my time
> and this thread.
I agree that your arguments were detailed and "well reasoned". So, rather
tha
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph
> > > > of Section 3 in question deals in terms of "components" and
> > > > "modules", not entire executables. So in the hypothetical case
> > > > we discuss, libc is a "component" (although statically linked,
>
> > > It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph
> > > of Section 3 in question deals in terms of "components" and
> > > "modules", not entire executables. So in the hypothetical case
> > > we discuss, libc is a "component" (although statically linked,
> > > the library is a separa
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > So don't put the binary in "main" :-); it's not so hard to have users
> > compile the 2-3 apps that fall within the "KDE developers borrowed GPL
> > code from another project" category.
>
> We're not putting it
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> So don't put the binary in "main" :-); it's not so hard to have users
> compile the 2-3 apps that fall within the "KDE developers borrowed GPL
> code from another project" category.
We're not putting it in main.
> > What does it mean
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Free software has become so successful that the arguments about what it can
> and cannot accomplish are being held about things that arguably aren't
> software at all. Documentation, polymodels, sound effects, fonts -- we
> need a way to separate the free wheat from the
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> (a) copyright law prevents copying of protected works without
> permission from the copyright holder; (b) that permission to copy can
> be given in a document, whether it is called a "license" or a
> "permission notice"
I become fatigued with this issue being continuously raised. A
quick review of the existing bugs against omniorb would have revealed
that this issue has been dealt with already.
Furthermore, please do not file bugs against old versions of
packages. omniorb is at patchlevel 2, which has two sets
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:14:15PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Where does it say that (in the GPL, that is). It only says you have to make
> > available the complete source code to what you are in fact distributing.
>
> I don't think we're disagreeing on this point.
>
> Ho
9 matches
Mail list logo
