Question regarding QPLed plugins for a GPLed app

2005-03-16 Thread Ben Burton
Hi, I'm currently involved in a discussion on kde-core-devel regarding the use of a QPLed plugin that is dlopened within a GPLed application. For details: http://lists.kde.org/?l=kdevelop-devel&m=02280128853&w=2 I received the following response, claiming that dlopened plugins do not need

Re: GPL for documentation ?

2005-03-16 Thread Daniel Carrera
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined > > in the section titled Authors. > > I suppose "its contributers as defined..." would count as an > readily-recognizable abbreviation to the copyright holders. Though I'd > suggest "as listed", be

Combining GPL and BSD/CeCILL/whatever

2005-03-16 Thread Jarno Elonen
Hi, I'd like to get some clarifications on how to interpret GPL's derivations-must-also-be-licensed-under-GPL feature and similar demands in other licenses. Namely: If have, say, a BSD-new or CeCILL licensed piece of code that is used in a GPL'd program by... 1) dynamically linking it into

Re: dssi license issues

2005-03-16 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:57:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Mark Hymers wrote: > > >= > >Licensing for the files in the examples directory may vary: please > >check the individual files for details. Most of them are in the > >public domain, which means you can use them f

Re: GPL for documentation ?

2005-03-16 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
Daniel Carrera wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec. 401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol Â, the word "copyright", or the abbreviation "copr."; the year of the first publication of the work; and the name of th

Re: dssi license issues

2005-03-16 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
Mark Hymers wrote: = Licensing for the files in the examples directory may vary: please check the individual files for details. Most of them are in the public domain, which means you can use them for anything you want. = Public domain should be fine for main. -- To

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-03-16 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
Matthew Palmer wrote: Add another one -- "must offer an [...] opportunity for all users [...] to request immediate transmission by HTTP" -- doesn't mean that the request must be successfully honoured... Strictly speaking, yes. However, if you intentionally saw that all requests would fail to be

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-03-16 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
Francesco Poli wrote: | 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new | versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new | versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may | differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Need pharmacy

2005-03-16 Thread Bryce
Do you want inexpensive Valium? http://www.pflzer.com/p/viks/19 or 160 other drugs: http://www.pflzer.com/p/viks you czerniak me pigtail me you wireman me covariate me you emplace me hackneyed me you sad me tablet me you horrid me gargantuan me http://900mg.com/1.php -- To UN