Peter writes:
> However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a difference?
I assume you meant to write "...he wouldn't sue..."?
Most of the authors who publish under whacky non-free licenses probably
wouldn't sue. Lawsuits are not the only reason to be careful, though. We
also want to m
Ben Pfaff writes:
> This clause in particular I find confusing. I'm not at all sure what it
> means:
It means that Sun can put the Program in Solaris and distribute it under
the Solaris license, but that in doing so they agree to take responsibility
for any lawsuits that result.
--
John Hasler
[
Joseph Carter writes:
> Only the lawyers at IBM could take a two paragraph BSDish license and
> make 9 pages out of it.
Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
license, but you must make source available under the IBM license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J
Marcelo E. Magallon writes:
> I browsed IBM's site, but I couldn't find any reference that claims this
> license is OpenSource...
I don't know if it is Open Source, but IMHO it is free. I don't like that
final sentences about compliabce with laws, but I think we can live with
it. I *really* like
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:46:13PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Only the lawyers at IBM could take a two paragraph BSDish license and
> > make 9 pages out of it.
>
> Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
> license, but you must make source available under the
On May 28, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> From what I read in FSF/GNU documentation, it's only necessary for
> "segnifigant" contributions, not a few lines of code. I think all the
> major contributors to Abi are employees of AbiSource.. Every thing else
> are seperate libraries.
... which may have t
I wrotes:
> Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
> license, but you must make source available under the IBM license.
Joseph Carter writes:
> You just described the BSD license...
The BSD license (less warrantee disclaimer):
Redistribution and use in sourc
Chris Lawrence writes:
> Is the LGPL (AbiWord uses glib internally) Qt-compatible?
The LGPL is everything compatible. That is its purpose.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:00:22PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Um.. no... it's more like:
> developers to debian-legal: "Is the GPL compatible with QT? I.e., is
> it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?"
> Debian-legal to developers: "Not that we can see. QT and GPL are
> incompatible".
> I
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
> Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the L
(This is sent to both debian-legal and debian-devel, because the mail
I'm replying to was, and I'm seeing this mistake made far too often
to leave it uncorrected.)
Riku Voipio wrote:
> Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
It might, but that will make no difference. That clause would
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:54:37PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > From what I read in FSF/GNU documentation, it's only necessary for
> > "segnifigant" contributions, not a few lines of code. I think all the
> > major contributors to Abi are employees of AbiSource.. Every thing else
> > are sepe
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause? Afterall, we know
> several GPL:d apps that link them on motif, for example ddd.
It can, however
> to quote GPL:
>
> "the source code distributed need not include
> anything that
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:50:05AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 09:00:22PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> > Um.. no... it's more like:
>
> > developers to debian-legal: "Is the GPL compatible with QT? I.e., is
> > it legal to link GPL'd code to QTv2?"
>
> > Debian-leg
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 02:59:35PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
> >
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > under the terms of the GNU General Public License a
Montreal Sat May 29 09:55:38 1999
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
>
> It might, but that will make no difference. That clause would let other
> people distribute GPL'd programs linked with Qt. It wouldn't help
Montreal Sat May 29 10:03:30 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is hotly debated, some people say that nothing X-based should be
> considered "part of the operating system", others say that Qt, gtk, and X
> are all part of Linux, and others still say that Qt would have to be at
>
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:09:19AM -0400, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> Aren't commercial companies distributing GNU tools such as EGCS with
> their commercial OSes (proprietary libc)?
They shouldn't be. Doesn't mean they aren't, but they shouldn't be.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 02:30:16PM +0100, Chris Butler wrote:
> A program I'm currently thinking of packaging (nessus, a network
> administration tool similar to SATAN)
You shouldn't :) Javier Pena and me are already interested in it,
and we almost have the package ready. It is possible that Javi
Riku Voipio writes:
> Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
Because it isn't priority essential.
> to quote GPL:
> "the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and
John Hasler wrote:
> Peter writes:
> > However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a difference?
>
> I assume you meant to write "...he wouldn't sue..."?
Sorry. Right.
> Most of the authors who publish under whacky non-free licenses probably
> wouldn't sue. Lawsuits are not the onl
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
> >
> >Additionally, you are granted permission to
> > assume, for the purposes of distributing this program in object code or
> > executable
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 08:03:11AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Riku Voipio writes:
> > Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
> Because it isn't priority essential.
Neither is GCC nor kernel... The border is drawn in the water.
I know, both are under GPL, but GPL mention's kernel and c
Riku Voipio writes:
> The border is drawn in the water. I know, both are under GPL, but GPL
> mention's kernel and compiler as examples of software falling uder system
> category.
The border is drawn on common sense. The kernel is clearly a major system
component in Linux. Qt clearly is not.
>
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing this program
> in object code or executable form under Section 3 of the GNU General
> Public License, assume that the xforms library (Copyright (c) by
> T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) is normally distributed with
25 matches
Mail list logo
