On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, David Starner wrote:
> The authors position, as explained by them in a long flamewar on
> gnu.misc.discuss, was that they didn't want anyone ripping off
> their code to improve stuff like Java and other non functional
> programming languages, which is why they were going to stay
Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:53:45PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The bytecode interpreter and the run-time libraries needed to
> > be linked with it are all GPL.
> Not according to the copyright file. The copyright file included
> in Debian says LG
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:53:45PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The bytecode interpreter and the run-time libraries needed to
> be linked with it are all GPL.
Not according to the copyright file. The copyright file included
in Debian says LGPL.
> The ocaml source for the compiler itself is QP
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What's the status of Ocaml?
Somewhat unclear.
> I noticed parts of it were under GPL and other parts not.
Executive summary for debian-legal:
The ocaml compiler is written in its own language. It compiles
ocaml to bytecode, which is then executed
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:18:03AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
>What's the status of Ocaml? I noticed parts of it were under GPL and
> other parts not. Can I write software in Ocaml without requiring users
> get non-free software to compile it?
The top of the ocaml package copyright fil
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, SSchott wrote:
>
> This is very general. Copyright law can preempt licensing agreements-- for
> example licensing provisions prohibiting decompiliation and reverse
> engineering have been found to be in violation of the "fair use" provision
> of the Copyright Act. (Sega v. Acc
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 01:52:39PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> As a general legal rule, you cannot assume that A+B is legal, even if
> A separately is legal and B separately is legal; the combination can
> still be illegal.
This is very general. Copyright law can preempt licensing agreem
What's the status of Ocaml? I noticed parts of it were under GPL and
other parts not. Can I write software in Ocaml without requiring users
get non-free software to compile it?
Lynn
Scripsit Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not sure. As I recall there might have been an issue
> related to notifications (under Section 2.2 You May Deploy
> Covered Code, provided...
> c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made
> by You, inform others of how to obtain
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 01:52:39PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> As a general legal rule, you cannot assume that A+B is legal, even if
> A separately is legal and B separately is legal; the combination can
> still be illegal.
Absolutely.
Individual characters are not copyrightable. Works
10 matches
Mail list logo
