Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You can distribute a work under more than one license, so I still don't
> > > see why this is an issue.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > May be true in general, but not w/ the LGPL. Look at Section 3 of the LGPL:
>
Raul Miller wrote:
> > You can distribute a work under more than one license, so I still don't
> > see why this is an issue.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> May be true in general, but not w/ the LGPL. Look at Section 3 of the LGPL:
>
> You may opt to apply th
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> I'll just finish my round of quick shots and then _really_ be gone.
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > > By contrast GPL (as I read it) simply requires that the all permissions to
> > > third
Marc van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, I assume that Microsoft does not forbid distribution of binaries
> for programs that run under MS Windows (that would certainly decrease the
> popularity of their platform). Is this because they explicitly gave
> permission, or simply beca
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > In these cases where there are grey areas, I wouldn't really trust our
> > > opinions to be all that valid. Just as we might not trust a lawyer's
> > > advice on how to implemen
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you
> > have to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed
> > with Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the
I'll just finish my round of quick shots and then _really_ be gone.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > By contrast GPL (as I read it) simply requires that the all permissions to
> > third parties set forth in the GPL (but not
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
...
> > > It is not until Section 3 is reached where under your interpretation (but
> > > not
> > > mine) the Program is redefined to be the complete source code that there
> > > is a
> > > problem.
> >
> > I disagree with this point.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you
> have to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed
> with Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment
> that Debian does no
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > 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.
> ...
> >> If you defin
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> The problem with reading the GPL this way is that it systematically uses this
> phrase when the rest of the GPL (or the designated part) does NOT explicitly
> treat the subject of "under the terms" (in some cases: explicitly not). This
> is most clear
On Feb 16, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you have
> to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed with
> Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment that Debian
> does not in fact do the conversion).
Raul Miller wrote:
> 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,
> > a
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:39:29AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> But either way I think we agree the binary isn't licensed under the GPL.
I believe I already stated this in another message, but: without a license
you're not allowed to distribute the binary.
--
Raul
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:30:31AM +1100, 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).
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> 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.
...
> If you define the work as I have then reading through the terms o
16 matches
Mail list logo
