I wrote:
> No. Gcc *reads* the header files in the compilation process.
> People... this tangent into the inner-workings of gcc is really
> irrelevant.
> I think it's fair to say that in the general case the contents of the
> header files are an important part of the source code for a program.
Hi all,
There is a multicol.sty new license (from the
tools package of LaTeX).
It's LaTeX license + some moral.
It probably raises questions that few of us can
properly answer both from the legal and
philosophical point of view, but it "tastes" like
"free".
Let's hope this will not disqualify
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes to the debian-legal list:
> There is a multicol.sty new license (from the
> tools package of LaTeX).
> It's LaTeX license + some moral.
It seems DFSG free to me, as I found it at
ftp://ftp.dante.de/pub/tex/macros/latex2e/required/tools/multicol.dtx
The com
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 04:17:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It was long enough ago that providing a copy may be somewhat difficult.
> > It's been a few months. I'll see if I can find it though.
>
> If it's been that long, I think there's a reasonable chance you're
> remembering a mis-interp
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the letter RMS told me that even if the terms of the GPL and the QPL
> were identical for all practical purposes, the QPL is not the GPL and as
> a result the QPL may only be compatible with the GPL if it allows the
> work to be sublicensed under the GP
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 11:06:26PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 04:17:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > It was long enough ago that providing a copy may be somewhat difficult.
> > > It's been a few months. I'll see if I can find it though.
> > If it's been that long, I
> The bigger issue is then are we permitted to mix GPL and _MOST
> ANYTHING ELSE_ at all? Based on the email from RMS in December, no
> we aren't.
correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
'lesser blood'. i guess that would make rms feel dirty or
something. ;)
> If p
Jonathan quotes someone whose name has been lost in the mists of time:
> If people want to know why I consider the "GPL virus" a bad thing, there
> is the answer. If everything that links with the GPL _MUST BE_ 100% GPL,
Everything that links with the GPL does not have to be GPL.
> then there ar
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:15:38AM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > The bigger issue is then are we permitted to mix GPL and _MOST
> > ANYTHING ELSE_ at all? Based on the email from RMS in December, no
> > we aren't.
>
> correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
> '
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:27:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > If people want to know why I consider the "GPL virus" a bad thing, there
> > is the answer. If everything that links with the GPL _MUST BE_ 100% GPL,
>
> Everything that links with the GPL does not have to be GPL.
So I would think.
> It's a big problem because I see it? =p
no... it was a big problem before, but people may remember things when you
say them (for instance, i've made the exact same rant as yours this month.
i proposed the same solution to the license problem. raise your hand if you
remember that...)
it also me
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms matched
> with the exception of license compatibility than use a license I KNEW was
> going to limit where others could or could not use my code for the
> purposes of Free Software. If my code is being u
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 01:32:10PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > It's a big problem because I see it? =p
>
> no... it was a big problem before, but people may remember things when you
> say them (for instance, i've made the exact same rant as yours this month.
> i proposed the same solution
13 matches
Mail list logo
