Yes. I meant the copyright holder.
Andrew
On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> > the GPL, but a
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > > > My m
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you were to pick either GPL or MPL, and not modify the work, does
> the recipient only have your choice of licence to pick from, or can
> they still choose either?
They can still choose either. In the case of both the GPL and the MPL
alike, the gran
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> what you want to do is distribute it so that whoever received it also
> has the option of choosing GPL or MPL.
>
> If you were to pick either GPL or MPL, and not modify the work, does the
> recipient only have your choice of licence to pick from, or can they
> still choos
Raul Miller wrote:
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work
dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the
copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately
distributed under
On 11/5/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. The preamble explains the FSF's
> goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor.
>
> If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick
> against the copyr
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Arc Riley wrote:
> What makes you think Arc isn't my real name? It's a gaelic name that died
> out
> after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by
> happy christian names. There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work
> dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the
> copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately
> distributed under one of the lice
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:33:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
> noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
> (My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
> his name to i
There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
(My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
his name to it?".) Just FYI.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
> source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
> by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
> release under th
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.
Andrew
On 11/5/05, Arc <[EMA
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take
> my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
> (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
> but I could do it
Please don't top-post.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:42:10AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
> can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.
I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take
my progra
Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.
Andrew
On 11/5/05, Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > >
> > > So if you want, you can use it unde
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> >
> > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
> >
> > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
>
> I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> und
On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > > could have be
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> >
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any collection of bits is "software". The GPL works very well for any
collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distri
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> supposed to apply to
> > software, not to documents.
>
> Any collection of b
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
supposed to apply to
> software, not to documents.
Any collection of bits is "software". The GPL works very well for any
collection of b
22 matches
Mail list logo
