On 11/22/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These sloppities lend support to the hypothesis that the exception was
> not drafted by the FSF's usual license advisors. Is it really FSF
> software?
>
Don't think so. For two main reasons:
1. GNU doesn't always mean FSF. Most GNU proje
Henning Makholm wrote:
> In any case, the language in this exception is sloppy. It is never the
> case that something external to me can by itself _cause_ an executable
> in which I have copyright interest to "be covered by the GPL".
Right. It looks like a sloppy adaptation of the FSF's own
linkin
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:
>As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from GNADE
>Ada units, or you link GNADE Ada units or libraries with other files
>to produce an executable, these units or libraries do not by itself
>cause the resulting exec
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > Btw, the latest revised license reads:
> >
> > c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
> > right to copy, use and distribute the Contribut
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:19:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
> >> > I'm not sure about my suggested "name of work" phrase; it's
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Btw, the latest revised license reads:
>
> c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
> right to copy, use and distribute the Contribution, with
> or without modification, in any medium, without royalty,
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> > I'm not sure about my suggested "name of work" phrase; it's clunky,
>> > anyone got anything better?
>>
>> I agree it sounds strang
"Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think you are thinking of "i.e." here. "e.g." means more or less
"for example".
Doh! Misread that. You are right.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > I'm not sure about my suggested "name of work" phrase; it's clunky,
> > anyone got anything better?
>
> I agree it sounds strange, but I can't think of a better term.
Maybe "title"?
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> It is not quite clear how the exception is to be interpreted. There
> are at least two possibilities:
Looking at the
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> If the license require ANY endorsement by the IETF to be removed,
>> saying the original work is an IETF RFC would not be permitted.
>
> Huh? The factual information that the text is based on an IETF RF
Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the license require ANY endorsement by the IETF to be removed,
> saying the original work is an IETF RFC would not be permitted.
Huh? The factual information that the text is based on an IETF RFC
does not in any way imply that the IETF endorses th
Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> exception from the GNAT license?
It is not quite clear how the exception is to be interpreted. There
are at least two possibilities:
1) An ordinary GPL grant of rights is given. In _
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Smith wrote:
>> I think it is accecptable to allow the modified versions to say something
>> like the following, which the original
>> appears to disallow.
>> "This document is based on the IETF Internet Standard RFC, although
>> this vers
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> A requirement not to remove the exception would be a further
> restriction as far as the GPL concerned. Of course, there is no such
> require
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
> Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> exception from the GNAT license?
A requirement not to remove the exception would be a further
restriction as far as the GPL concerned. Of course, there is no such
requirement, and therefore, you may remove th
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> IMO, yes. People are not obligated to retain this
> exception of GPL. This is similar as relicensing L-GPL
> to GPL.
The LGPL has an explicit clause saying you can relicense the
material under GPL (section 3 of the LGPL).
Where is the statement that allows you to take off th
IMO, yes. People are not obligated to retain this
exception of GPL. This is similar as relicensing L-GPL
to GPL.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe this subject was discussed before, but I'd
> like some
> clarification. The GNU Ada compiler (GNAT) from FSF
> is distributed
> under
Hello,
Maybe this subject was discussed before, but I'd like some
clarification. The GNU Ada compiler (GNAT) from FSF is distributed
under GPL with this special linking exception:
"As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this
unit, or you link this unit with other files t
Joe Smith wrote:
> I think it is accecptable to allow the modified versions to say something
> like the following, which the original
> appears to disallow.
> "This document is based on the IETF Internet Standard RFC, although
> this version is not offical."
What about RFCs that are not In
20 matches
Mail list logo
