Hi,
I apologize for any typos/grammar problems, I did not error-check very well . .
.
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:01:32AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:00:40AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > > Jeff Licquia wrote
I am moving this discussion to debian-legal in order to get an advice on how
to proceed with this problem.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:07:58AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I see you have modified it to use readline, which is great, but since
> readline is GPLed, I think the complete Debian bibind
On Jan 31, Andreas Pour wrote:
[Pages of discussion about the BSD license clipped]
> Well, if you really mean that, I put it to you that it would be a
> lot easier (given the problems I noted above about changing the KDE
> license) for Debian to distribute KDE-2.x as is than it would be for
> KDE t
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:07:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > This is all true. However, the BSD licensing terms are not being
> > violated, are they? There is no clause in the BSD license that
> > requires me to redistribute under the same terms; it simply gives m
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>> Most of the time this has worked rather well for us. But, somehow,
>> people are >>offended<< that Debian isn't distributing KDE.
>
>To be fair, people were offended by the Debian statement that distributing KDE
>is
>unlawful and to a lesser extent by t
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am moving this discussion to debian-legal in order to get an advice on how
> to proceed with this problem.
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:07:58AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > I see you have modified it to use readline, which is great, but s
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:18:19PM +0100, Jens Ritter wrote:
> "public domain" means that you can publish it under the GPL.
> This term means that the ones who are copyright owners do not enforce
> it but have placed it into the public domain. Which basically means
> that you can do anything with
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> (I guess I'm missing the reason why it's so hard to get people to
> explicitly say "you can link this against Qt"; that apparently would
> satisfy the FTP maintainers and let KDE 1 into contrib [and KDE 2 into
> main]).
My assumption would be that those certain people see
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> The bottom line is that Debian won't distribute KDE without clear,
> explicit permission from the authors to link their code (which they
> have licensed as GPLed without any exceptions) against Qt. Debian has
> expected a clear license from everyone else whose software has
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:07:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > This is all true. However, the BSD licensing terms are not being
> > > violated, are they? There is no clause in the BSD license that
> > > requires me to redistribute under
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:44:27AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
>
> But I have a nagging suspicion that even if all the KDE source files had
> this additional clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of
> view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in
> contrib or main.
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The existence of this debate proves at least a significant plurality.
> Otherwise, you could afford to ignore us, right?
> [...]
> Are you trying to cite numbers as a plausible argument to look down on
> us, or call our opinion irrelevant? Again, that's not exactly the
> bes
David Johnson wrote:
> I didn't check for every GPL application that uses Qt, only one example
> is sufficient. The package licq 0.44-4, in stable, uses the Qt library,
> along with being licensed under the GPL. It does not have any additional
> clauses at all. I looked. I didn't find any.
If tha
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 11:20:56AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> My cynicism just kicked in again :-) So I am now doing a wee bit of
> research...
>
> Of course, I'm not currently running Debian at work, so I don't have any
> means to extract licenses out of deb files [...]
Everything you ev
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:28:02PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> i'm sure many of you noticed the release of CMU's Speech to Text as 'Open
> Source' today on slashdot. after carefull inspection of the license, i found
> that it isn't exactly free.
What isn't free about it?
/* ==
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 02:22:58PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
[... I try to show why it is obvious that Andreas Pour his explanation
of the issues involved with distributing a combined work from source
distributed under the GPL, BSD and/or QT is wrong. Andreas Pour repeats
some of his assum
Joe Drew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:28:02PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > i'm sure many of you noticed the release of CMU's Speech to Text as 'Open
> > Source' today on slashdot. after carefull inspection of the license, i found
> > that it isn't exactly free.
>
> What
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 02:22:58PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Adding terms is changing the license.
Depending on context, this may be completely legal -- or not.
> Otherwise I can add a provision to the GPL which says,
> "Notwithstanding anything in this License to the contrary, if the
> distri
excuse me, i meant part 4 of the license. part 3 is fine.
--
(jacob kuntz)[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED],underworld}.net
(megabite systems) "think free speech, not free beer." (gnu foundataion)
Terry Dawson wrote:
>
> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > I didn't check for every GPL application that uses Qt, only one example
> > is sufficient. The package licq 0.44-4, in stable, uses the Qt library,
> > along with being licensed under the GPL. It does not have any additional
> > clauses at all. I
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:44:27AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> But I have a nagging suspicion that even if all the KDE source files had
> this additional clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of
> view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in
> contrib or main.
[W
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:06:24PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > As far as I can see, it complies with the DFSG - looks like standard
> > BSD-type fare. Comments?
> >
>
> see part 3, derived works. that violates the open source guidelines. that
> doesn't mean i'm not brimming with glee that we ha
22 matches
Mail list logo
