> "BTS" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTS> Yes. And this picture of a Gnu is not a derivative work of
BTS> Emacs. But if I package it with Emacs as the Emacs icon, the
BTS> combination IconEmacs is a derivative work of Emacs -- and of
BTS> my iconic gnu.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its
> > distribution.
> And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF objects
No, it isn't.
The FSF doesn't prohibit derivatives (of GPL works and proprietary works
tog
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
>> Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped with Windows, is.
>
> Either it is or isn't. You create a derivative work (or don't
On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped with Windows, is.
Either it is or isn't. You create a derivative work (or don't create a
derivative work) when you create a work.
Tapin
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:57:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>>I ask because such a file is present in Debian's Linux kernel sources and
>>there seems to have been no attempt to remove it, despite the upload of
>>new versions since the bug report.
>>
>>drivers/usb/mi
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:57:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I ask because such a file is present in Debian's Linux kernel sources and
> there seems to have been no attempt to remove it, despite the upload of
> new versions since the bug report.
>
> drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h:
>
> * The
I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h
has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission
to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs
(IMO incorrectly) and proceeded to ignore it for at least four uploads. Th
Package: jftpgw
Version: 0.13.5-1
Severity: serious
The jftpgw package currently distributed in Debian has two license
problems:
1. The source contains a file named snprintf.c that doesn't contain any
copyright notice or license header. It appears to be copied verbatim
from the Mutt distri
Marco Franzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a
>> relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed
> Java pr
Marco Franzen writes:
> ... Bootstrapping [using an Oaklisp interpreter written in Scheme]
> might fail because an Oaklisp-specific feature of the target system
> is subtly implemented by the same feature in the host system ...
Right, then you would have to do this thing called "debugging", in
ord
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-15 14:23:06 +0100 Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file,
with the exception that it cannot be placed on a CD-ROM or similar media
On 2004-06-15 14:23:06 +0100 Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file,
with the exception that it cannot be placed on a CD-ROM or similar
media
for commerc
--[Cc: me, I am not subscibed]--
Hi,
I am considering DBD::InterBase perl module and I am stuck with its license.
(http://search.cpan.org/src/EDPRATOMO/DBD-InterBase-0.43/InterBase.pm)
--
Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Edwin Pratomo
You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU Gen
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a
relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme.
Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed
Java program that, as it is, currently runs only on a non-fr
Nathanael Nerode said on Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 01:20:11PM -0400,:
> unfortunately it's not clear yet whether that's GPL-compatible;
> eventually some version of the Apache license should be though.
Apache says ASL 2.0 is GPL compatible, FSF says it is not.
--
Mahesh T. Pai<<>
15 matches
Mail list logo
