What do people think about the status of #144984? My first thought was
to agree with the submitter that it's non-free. On the other hand, the
GPL says:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee
On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 09:11, Simon Law wrote:
> These 165 packages include such GPLed software as: nessus,
> snort, wget-ssl, proftpd, kdelibs3-crypto, postgresql, gnustep-ssl,
> etc... I'm very disturbed by this discovery, as we would be doing
> something illegal by distributing these pack
On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 16:24, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Because of the GPL's inability to distinguish between "proprietary"
> and "not GPL"
You mean between "proprietary" and "GPL-incompatible".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 02:15, Brian May wrote:
> I normally like the GPL, but I find it a bit irratating that I can't
> take some GPL program, and link it against Heimdal (which happens to
> be linked against OpenSSL), without express permission from all the
> copyright holders of the GPL software.
On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 09:43, Sven wrote:
> Then, there is the ideological debate we could have, about if this is a good
> thing or not, and if the DFSG was meant to be applied to documentation also,
> and not to just programs, and if we go down this path, we should also specify
> using only free ha
On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 23:58, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> It's not in any Debian archive that I know of. (I didn't mean to imply
> that, sorry.)
> A discussion of the license can be found here:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Darwin per se isn't, but "qtss" is, which is under the same
6 matches
Mail list logo
