On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Several people on this list have argued this loophole exists today. It
> doesn't, but they argue that it does anyway. =p Such arguments were
> re-used by the QuakeLives project (a project which was in "competition
> with"(?) QuakeF
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 08:43:26AM +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> I've contacted RMS on the issue of the GPL-conflict in KDE. As I interpret
> the first paragraph in his answer it should be ok for all Code that was
> originated in the KDE project, because the authors did intend to link against
>
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 05:24:23PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Several people on this list have argued this loophole exists today. It
> doesn't, but they argue that it does anyway. =p Such arguments were
> re-used by the QuakeLives project (a project which was in "competition
> with"(?) Quake
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 08:43:26AM +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> I've contacted RMS on the issue of the GPL-conflict in KDE. As I interpret
> the first paragraph in his answer it should be ok for all Code that was
> originated in the KDE project, because the authors did intend to link against
>
Hi all,
I've contacted RMS on the issue of the GPL-conflict in KDE. As I interpret
the first paragraph in his answer it should be ok for all Code that was
originated in the KDE project, because the authors did intend to link against
Qt. Problematic may be all the code outside of it like the ghostv
Hi all,
I've contacted RMS on the issue of the GPL-conflict in KDE. As I interpret
the first paragraph in his answer it should be ok for all Code that was
originated in the KDE project, because the authors did intend to link against
Qt. Problematic may be all the code outside of it like the ghost
6 matches
Mail list logo
