Andreas Pour writes:
> Also, IMHO Qt cannot afford to have a license as poorly drafted as the
> GPL...
The GPL is extremely well drafted.
> I think it is a huge mistake to have computer programmers draft legal
> agreements/licenses.
And the reason the GPL is extremely well drafted is that it was
Joseph Carter writes:
> Many people have said that shrinkwrap licenses on the vast majority of
> non-free software are illegal, point is that usually these companies are
> US based and in the US whether or not you win in court is directly
> proportional to how well you pay your lawyers and how many
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 01:44:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Relabelling is a problem - we want Linux distributors to be able to
> > make changes and still call it Qt and libqt.so. Otherwise we create a
> > mess.
>
> Hmm... What kind of mess would you anticipate if you called it "Modified
> Qt
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:58:04AM +0100, Warwick Allison wrote:
> >that this omission will need to be rectified unless the patch clause
> >is entirely eliminated [perhaps in favor of a relabelling clause --
> >I see no reason to call a Qt derivative Qt if the API might be different].
>
> Relabell
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 03:25:52AM -0600, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > The GPL talks about it as a modified version of the program. I'm talking
> > about a patch file. At that point, they are two seperate works. (Some
> > people disagree with this, but they were the people saying KDE source code
> >
--On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 8:47 pm -0600 "Andreas Pour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In
order
>> to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to
be
>> applied to t
--On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 10:17 pm -0500 "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In
order
>> to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to
be
>> applied
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:17:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order
> > to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
> > applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use the
[liberal use of paragraph reformatting ahead...]
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 08:47:47PM -0600, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In
> > order to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it
> > has to be applied to the so
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order
> to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
> applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use their
> patch, they wil
Joseph Carter wrote:
[ ... ]
>1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order
> to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
> applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use their
> patch, they will be able
A great many more people than have ever seen this thing before are seeing it
now for the first time, so here's a little recap. Note these events are as
I see them, not necessarily as they are. Facts may be wrong. If you
disagree, tough--the point isn't this but what comes after. Flames to
/dev/
12 matches
Mail list logo
