On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
> propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
> it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
That's questionable. That would mean
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:57:25 -0400, Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
> threads for this week.
Don't worry, it will be. :-)
--
Andrew Saunders
On 2004-08-11 20:34:34 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:57:25AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary
of
threads for this week.
It is truly pathetic that such highlighting is considered necessar
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:12:44PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the
> > ocaml
> > 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
> >
> > As said pr
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
> 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
>
> As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the clause QPL
> 6c problem.
That's gr
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:57:25AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
> threads for this week.
>
> It's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be highlighted. It
> demonstrates how debian-legal works with upstream to find ways to m
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:14:31PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-10 21:05:32 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >There's a parallel, synonymous term in UK law. Any reasonable court
> >should accept it as a synonym.
>
> Relying on a reasonable court unless it's really cert
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
threads for this week.
It's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be highlighted. It
demonstrates how debian-legal works with upstream to find ways to make
their software DFSG-Free.
It's also nice to see that Sleepyca
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
> > the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
> > As said previously, it fixes
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
>
> Not so great.
>
> > but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
>
> I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
I'm not convinced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 11, 2004, at 1:52, Dave O wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Christian Hammers wrote:
On 2004-08-10 Dave O wrote:
This isn't quite ready to be considered "fixed" since the new
version > of the license exception will apply to future releases of
My
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On 2004-08-10 Dave O wrote:
> > This isn't quite ready to be considered "fixed" since the new version > of
> > the license exception will apply to future releases of MySQL > including
> > 4.0.21. However, if 4.0.21 is not out by the freeze, this
Hello
[Cc to debian-legal, please CC back as I'm not subscribed]
On 2004-08-10 Dave O wrote:
> This isn't quite ready to be considered "fixed" since the new version > of
> the license exception will apply to future releases of MySQL > including
> 4.0.21. However, if 4.0.21 is not out by the fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
