On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:33:31PM -0400, none wrote:
> My difficulty with this argument is that an owner of the copy of the
> GPL library has a wide right to make a derivative work on the owner's
> computer by virtue of the GPL and/or a more limited right in the U.S.
> by virtue of section 117 of
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
> > and go from there.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
If, as he claims, there's
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:30:52PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This causes no problem, because the QPL is not incompatible with the LGPL,
> > but it is with the GPL. So there is no possibility to link it with
> > libreadline, isn't it ?
>
> Y
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:29:35PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> The real problem is that it is a pain for the user to use a toplevel
> interpreter without propper input history support. The authors couldn't care
> less, and don't want (yet) to release the few files from the toplevel
> interpreter
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:29:35PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> >
> > The real problem is that it is a pain for the user to use a toplevel
> > interpreter without propper input history support. The authors couldn't care
> > less, an
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:46:50PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > Why not use libeditline instead? It's source-code compatible with the basic
> > features of readline and has a BSD (sans ad clause) type license.
>
> Ok didn't
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:46:50PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > >
> > > Why not use libeditline instead? It's source-code compatible with the
> > > basic
> > >
On 21 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> At the same time, it is wise to bend over backwards to
> make clear that one is disclaiming any implied warranty that might
> exist.
This depends which nation's law you are under. As I understood German law,
any clause if at a whole void, that disclai
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
> > > and go from there.
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Where to? What exactly is served
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Err, my understanding was that anything is compatible with the GPL, but that
> the GPL just stops you from distributing it without complying with the GPL, i
> am right with it ?
Yes, but the GPL applies to the *whole program*.
> It is perfectly well t
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
>> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I
>> would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
>> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
>>
>> In H
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian
> GNU/Linux.
No, we're not.
To see the difference, compare this to
Debian GNU/Linux -- This product includes software developed by the Apache
Group for use in the Ap
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian
>> GNU/Linux.
>
>No, we're not.
Then why IS it Debian GNU/Linux instead of Debian Linux?
>To see the difference, compare
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 22 June 2001 10:28 pm, John Galt wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it
> >> Debian GNU/Linux.
>
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Stephen Stafford wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Friday 22 June 2001 10:28 pm, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >> Debian's already doing this to so
My difficulty with this argument is that an owner of the copy of the GPL
library has a wide right to make a derivative work on the owner's computer
by virtue of the GPL and/or a more limited right in the U.S. by virtue of
section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
In the scenario we we
16 matches
Mail list logo
