Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Exactly! But what if I don't want to do that? The restriction is forcing
>> others to use license terms that are not in the GNU General Public License.
> But they are less restrictive license terms.
If there is an implied clause that forbids remo
On 11/25/05, Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2005 20:42, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> I don't think you understand. The restriction is on the removal of the
> additional permissions. In your
On Thursday 24 November 2005 20:42, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an example:
>
> "This program is licensed under the GPL...etcetc..
>
> If your name is Jim then sections 3a and 3b do not apply."
>
> is LESS restrictive than just the
On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Donnellan
> > On 11/23/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In what way? The clause means the license of GNAT is actually LESS
> > restrictive than the licens
Maybe this subject was discussed before, but I'd like some
clarification. The GNU Ada compiler (GNAT) from FSF is distributed
under GPL with this special linking exception:
"As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this
unit, or you link this unit with other files to pro
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 05:34:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Since the copyright holder in this case is the FSF, it's probably best to
> > just ask them.
>
> FSF is the copyright holder for parts of Gnat, including files that
> have this notice. But they are not the only copyright holder.
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 11/22/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> These sloppities lend support to the hypothesis that the exception was
>> not drafted by the FSF's usual license advisors. Is it really FSF
>> software?
> Don't think so. For two main reaso
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The only time I've actually seen an additional-permission clause that said
> "you may remove this clause" to explicitly remain GPL-compatible was ones
> drafted on this list, for linking to OpenSSL. I agree that #1 is almost
> certainly what was intend
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:57:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> It is not quite clear how the exception is to be interpreted. There
> are
On 11/22/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These sloppities lend support to the hypothesis that the exception was
> not drafted by the FSF's usual license advisors. Is it really FSF
> software?
>
Don't think so. For two main reasons:
1. GNU doesn't always mean FSF. Most GNU proje
Henning Makholm wrote:
> In any case, the language in this exception is sloppy. It is never the
> case that something external to me can by itself _cause_ an executable
> in which I have copyright interest to "be covered by the GPL".
Right. It looks like a sloppy adaptation of the FSF's own
linkin
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:
>As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from GNADE
>Ada units, or you link GNADE Ada units or libraries with other files
>to produce an executable, these units or libraries do not by itself
>cause the resulting exec
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> It is not quite clear how the exception is to be interpreted. There
> are at least two possibilities:
Looking at the
Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> exception from the GNAT license?
It is not quite clear how the exception is to be interpreted. There
are at least two possibilities:
1) An ordinary GPL grant of rights is given. In _
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> A requirement not to remove the exception would be a further
> restriction as far as the GPL concerned. Of course, there is no such
> require
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
> Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> exception from the GNAT license?
A requirement not to remove the exception would be a further
restriction as far as the GPL concerned. Of course, there is no such
requirement, and therefore, you may remove th
Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> IMO, yes. People are not obligated to retain this
> exception of GPL. This is similar as relicensing L-GPL
> to GPL.
The LGPL has an explicit clause saying you can relicense the
material under GPL (section 3 of the LGPL).
Where is the statement that allows you to take off th
IMO, yes. People are not obligated to retain this
exception of GPL. This is similar as relicensing L-GPL
to GPL.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe this subject was discussed before, but I'd
> like some
> clarification. The GNU Ada compiler (GNAT) from FSF
> is distributed
> under
18 matches
Mail list logo
