On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:12:57 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
> The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
> protect the innocent):
[BSD-style without ad clause]
> ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be di
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes:
>Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
>The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
>protect the innocent):
>
>
>Redistr
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm pretty
> sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know how they
> were handled. This is just from a discussion I had with someone.
>
> Can you
Nils Lohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you take GPL'ed code and use it with a closed source program? i.e.
> take the GPL'ed program do_everything and someone wants to write a library
> for it that's do_one_more_thing but keep the library closed, is that OK? If
> they want to distribute
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > pretty sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know
> > how they were handled. This is just from a discussion I had with
> > someone.
> >
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suggest going to ftp.be.com and checking out the /pub/gnu directory.
> > They have done exactly this with their boot loader. It uses some parts of
> > the Linux kernel (those parts are released in source), and some parts are
> > proprietary (thos pa
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:37:07AM -0400, Collins M. Ben wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > pretty
> > sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know how they
> > w
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 11:18:07AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:37:07AM -0400, Collins M. Ben wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > > pretty
> > > sure
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suggest going to ftp.be.com and checking out the /pub/gnu directory.
> > They have done exactly this with their boot loader. It uses some parts of
> > the Linux kernel (those parts are released in source), and some parts are
> > proprietary (thos p
> However in the case of the objective C compiler I cannot see what
> would legally prevent the NeXT model. NeXT would distribute GPL'ed
> source code; which they are allowed to. They would also distribute
> some proprietary object files which just happened to be able to
> link together with the GP
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > They would also distribute
> > some proprietary object files which just happened to be able to
> > link together with the GPL'ed source code. FSF can't prevent that.
> the trick: it doesn't just happen to link with the gpl code, it requires it
> an
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 06:18:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Would that mean that a program that happens to run only under Linux
> 2.2.x is a modification of Linux and so MUST be GPL'ed?
No. Linux is not GPL. It's GPL + a special exception (or clarification,
if you will) that linking again
12 matches
Mail list logo
