On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:53:06AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> OK, so you admit that the advertising clause conflicts with the
> GPL. Well, that's very interesting, b/c the Apache license (see
> http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt, clause 3) includes this provision,
> as well as several others (clau
Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> > > source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> > > distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 deals only with sourc
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Don Sanders wrote:
> > GNU e?grep, version 1.6
>
> Grep (the binary) does contain the following:
I see this message in grep 2.3 but not 1.6. (At the time I was logged into a
stable machine that doesn't get upgraded very often).
But either way I think we
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
[ . . . ]
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When I read "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2", I interpret that as "in
> > compliance with". "Under the terms of" is often used in legal documents to
> > mean
> > "in complia
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
[ Raul Miller wrote: ]
>
> > > No clauses from the BSD license were presented which conflicted with
> > > any of the clauses from the GPL.
> >
[ Andreas Pour wrote: ]
> > The advertising clause is a "furt
Excuse the previous message, I hit ^C ^C in emacs where I meant ^X ^X !
I'm ging to try to keep this short and then shut up definitely. I just aint
got the time to go on like this.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I read "under the terms of Sectio
Don Sanders wrote:
> Personally I think that it is theoretically possible to license a binary under
> the GPL, but I don't think it make much sense to do so, (it's equivalent to
> applying the GPL to say a file of raw binary data of rainfall measurements).
>
> For instance Section 0 of the GPL req
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500
> From: Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Personally I think that it is theoretically possible to license a binary under
the GPL, but I don't think it make much sense to do so, (it's equivalent to
applying the GPL to say a file of raw binary data of rainfall measurements).
For instance Section 0 of the GPL requires that in order to apply
I just want to prefix this message by saying the issue I am concerned with is
whether I can apply the GPL to a KDE application.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clea
Ok I screwed up in a few places in recent mails
> Is applicable and the complete source is not under the scope of the license.
Could have been clearer:
Is applicable and none of the complete source except for the Program is under
the scope of the license.
> If the complete sources do not contain
After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
appreciated.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Heart of the debate
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:19:41 +1100
From: Don Sanders <[EMAI
I hope you don't mind me replying to this too.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > However, the main point seems to be that you want to apply the requirement
> > > of GPL 3a t
13 matches
Mail list logo
