On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 12:17:45AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 04:22:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Mark Edel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > The User shall
can sue anybody for anything. Then again,
in this case it seems clear to me that they wouldn't have a snowballs chance
in of winning. Then again, this is the United States. (But note
that the packager should separately inemnify himself -- unlike the GPL, this
does NOT form a waver of warranty
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:44:53PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 07:32:40AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Hey all...
> > As I was looking for somthing completly different, I noticed somthing
> > interesting -- a commercial RCS clie
's at
http://www.componentsoftware.com/ple.
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amend
ied GPL?
"This program is licensed under the GPL with the exception that section
three also applies to any scientific paper based on data obtained from the
Program (or a work based on it under section 2)."
Would this do what you want it to?
On a tangental note, does section 3b really speci
s data irregardless of the fact that
it is in the form of .o files tacked on to the end (assumption, don't know
anything about Be's architecture) because it dosn't call any functions
within the kernel; it just does a blind JMP to the beginning of the kernel.
IIRC,
-=-
e BeOS bootloader, which is baised on the Linux bootloader, has been
a controversy before; for the resolution (IE last thing I heard about
it), see http://slashdot.org/articles/9804060848213.shtml. It certianly
seems to me that this isn't GPL complient.
-=- James Mastros
--
7 matches
Mail list logo
