Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:51:19PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > > Do we know for a fact that:
>
> > > a) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD folks ships gcc with their operating
> > >system,
> > > b) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD code
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:51:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Thank you for that clarification. I'm not sure where that puts Debian,
> however, if the legality of this is based on the particulars of US law.
Well, the whole world is supposed to be obeying the US's copyright laws,
right? Somet
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:51:19PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Do we know for a fact that:
> > a) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD folks ships gcc with their operating
> >system,
> > b) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD code that gcc links against is still
> >old-style BSD,
> >
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> *notice, this list
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we know for a fact that:
>
> a) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD folks ships gcc with their operating
>system,
> b) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD code that gcc links against is still
>old-style BSD,
> c) the FSF has *explicitly stated* th
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
> > is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
> > zeroth clause?
> Holy cow, your
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:44:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> *must display the following acknowledgement:
> *This product includes software developed by the NetBSD
> *Foundation, Inc. and its
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
> is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
> zeroth clause?
Holy cow, your are powerfully ignorant.
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:03:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Has anyone actually asked RMS what his intention here was?
> > I don't know, but I can think of no other way to make sense of the
> > "unless" part. See my full reasoning in the list archives at
> > http://lists.debian.org/deb
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
>> under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
>> limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
>
>Which part of "unle
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 14:44, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The mind boggles. How does one abide with (3) without breaking (4)?
The notice in (3) is a statement of fact, not an endorsement.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This interpretation does seem to have the side effect of rendering
> > NetBSD's distribution of gcc (for instance), uhm, interesting.
>
> It would seem so, but it's not easy for to f
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:05:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> >component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to
> >count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
> >appears in Debian's
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:07:47PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > The system-library exception expressly only appl
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > What is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to?
>
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html has an example of the clause in
> > question.
>
> The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
> is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
> zeroth clause?
Take a look at http://www.closedbsd.org/pub/COPYRIGHT for an example.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMA
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Um, sorry for being slow, but what is a "4-clause" BSD license? One
> that has positive as well as negative advertising clauses?
After ~50 MB of downloads: Yes, that's what it is. A representative
example from usr/src/lib/libc/gen/lockf.c in the NetB
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
> > under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
> > limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and o
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
> under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
> limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
Which part of "unless that component itself accompanies the
execut
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
> >The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> >component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to
> >count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> > > component accompanies the executable". Trad
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
>component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to
>count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
>appears in Debian's main archive. I've argued that th
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> > component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to count
> > as "accompanying" when the library as wel
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
> >libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for
Scripsit "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
>libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for the
>purpose of the GPL's 'system library' exception, in both spirit and
>letter, but I would hate to get bitt
A licensing issue (or maybe not an issue) for -legal:
1) The NetBSD source tree (that is, the sources which can be found at the
official NetBSD CVS server, and from which the NetBSD releases are
drawn) has a number of sections to it, with widely varying licenses
(though most can be classe
26 matches
Mail list logo
