On Thursday 25 May 2000, at 23 h 40, the keyboard of Joey Hess
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SourceForge now has 3 ia64 boxes, and they are letting people submit
> proposals to get access to them to port stuff.
You have to a registered user of SourceForge. Not a big deal but I prefer to
mention
I think the license is basically pretty good, but clause 5 is a
showstopper. Given Intel's track record on trying to prevent disclosure
of advanced features of their CPUs, such as the infamous "Appendix H" mess
with the Pentium, anyone who agreed to this sort of a confidentiality
clause might be e
Mike Bilow wrote:
> I think the license is basically pretty good, but clause 5 is a
> showstopper.
Clause 5:
5. The Intel Software provided in binary form contains confidential
information of Intel regarding technical aspects of the Itanium
processor. You must use the same degree of care to
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:59:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using
> > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd?
>
> Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem
> Qt 2.
I think this is dangerous. In the worst case, confidential information
could be contained in the mere existence of the binaries. For example,
suppose Intel has invented a new and secret floating point unit, the
"xo4" array processor. Intel gives you a program called "xo4.exe" which
they tell you
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using
> > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd?
> >
> > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem
> > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem
> >
> > Same stance, has never cha
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:40:27AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is
> > > > using
> > > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd?
> > >
> > > Qt 2.0 with
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:47:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > ok...unixODBC say's this:
> > >
> > >* All programs are GPL. *
> > >* All libs are LGPL
[..]
>
> unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a few apps which use
> tho
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 08:53:06AM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> I applaud these compromises,
Well, then, you just don't have the Debian attitude... :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to unle
Today, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:47:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > > > ok...unixODBC say's this:
> > > >* All programs are GPL. *
> > > >* All libs are LGPL
> > unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a
Scripsit Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If we see "License: GPLv2 or greater" we know it's DFSG compliant.
> But... look: "License: latest GPL version" is not!
Is anyone releasing software with that license specification?
--
Henning Makholm "Lucy giver
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> > Not. =< The binaries can't be uploaded without specific exemptions
> > for Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the
> > same problem. This is precisely what Troll Tech won't fix and KDE
> > wants to i
Today, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:21:53PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> > > Not. =< The binaries can't be uploaded without specific exemptions
> > > for Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the
> > > same problem. This is precisely what Troll
Mike Bilow wrote:
> I think this is dangerous. In the worst case, confidential information
> could be contained in the mere existence of the binaries. For example,
> suppose Intel has invented a new and secret floating point unit, the
> "xo4" array processor. Intel gives you a program called "xo
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:38:32PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> I got the impression that to be linked with a GPL app and distributed
> as such, it is required that one uses the GPL conversion clause.
I don't think you got this impression by reading the text of the license
-- the license
15 matches
Mail list logo
