On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:59:45AM +0400, olive wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> >olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
> >>the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
> >>in x.org which prohibit t
Walter Landry wrote:
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a
discrimination and moreo
You have got to look at this. Its outstanding. Its a major new business
http://www.judgmentprocessing.com/contents.htm/
audrie
Want to not receive info in the future? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:31:38 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
> proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not
> merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only
> freed
Quoting Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link
> GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL
> program and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done
> anything to define how tightly GPL
* David M.Besonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060204 00:41]:
> does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
The gpl v2 does so perfectly, the v3 draft currently has some clause
that will likely allow making programs non-free by restrict usage as
hosted application.
> specifically, doe
6 matches
Mail list logo
