Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kills copyleft: this is not in the spirit of GPLv2
> I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> additional requirements to be added.
> That is *against* the spirit of the GPLv2 (where the FSF promised that
> new version
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions
of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions,
if you bring suit
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:19:49 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Just a heads-up.
>
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/
[...]
> You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but
> if there are any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring
> them up here as well so we can try to ha
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:46:54 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
> The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
> there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions
> while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client.
> They really are the same problem.
Agreed.
Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[about: the Tigris licence is incompatible with the GPL]
> Isn't subversion also licensed under this license?
As far as I know. Why does that matter? GPL-incompatibility isn't a
big problem unless you're mixing it with work under the GPL, so there
are GP
5 matches
Mail list logo
