On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 23:23, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> > I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must
> > hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I
> > will buy as a violation of DFSG 5
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 02:31:53AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> However, clause 6 says it only takes effect "when distributed", which is
> kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
> general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
> distribution at all?
I'm n
Hi everyone,
I was wondering whether it would be legal for me compile and
link Balsa (GPL) to the libesmtp5 (LGPL) [1] and libldap2 (OpenLDAP PL
[2]) libs. Doing so results in a binary that is indirectly linked to
OpenSSL for which Balsa does not have a exclusion clause for at this
current
Scripsit Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, clause 6 says it only takes effect "when distributed", which is
> kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
> general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
> distribution at all?
It's not hard to come up
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Is the license of gnuplot compatible with the DFSG ?
>
> Yes. See DFSG#4. And gnuplot is in Debian main.
OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
the GNU tool for
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > > the GPL that states uneq
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we go by your interpretation, then any self-contained GPL executable
> (for example, a flash image for an embedded linux system) can be
> distributed without source code.
A GPL-d program in which the "original" is not source code is
incoherent. S
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What establishes "cahoots"? Well, basically, anyone who did any of
> > the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
> > isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
> > process. This is similar to conspiracy l
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > What establishes "cahoots"? Well, basically, anyone who did any of
> > > the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
> > > isolation or not) with the intention that it's part
I'm intending to package PyDDR (http://www.clickass.org/~tgz/pyddr), a
Dance Dance Revolution simulator for UNIX systems. The basic idea behind
DDR is that you have a pattern of button presses (which you press with
your feet, hence "dancing") which you do in rhythm with music.
PyDDR at the moment
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:05, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> I'm intending to package PyDDR (http://www.clickass.org/~tgz/pyddr), a
> Dance Dance Revolution simulator for UNIX systems. The basic idea behind
> DDR is that you have a pattern of button presses (which you press with
> your feet, hence "dancing"
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 09:23, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
> the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
> with such a license.
Well, what *is* the GNU tool for the job? AFAIK there isn't one.
(FWIW,
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to
> tell that my original "different people" scenario was meant as a
> situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is
> something they do because it makes sense in i
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think being forced to actively send changes (or changelogs) upstream
> is any different than having to produce source on demand; both discriminate
> against people who *can't* publically release changes, such as people under
> NDA.
The NDA is a
Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the license of gnuplot compatible with the DFSG ?
Yes.
> Gnuplot is freeware in the sense that you don't have to pay for
> it. However it is not freeware in the sense that you would be allowed
> to distribute a modified version of you
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
> the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
> with such a license.
gnuplot predates the GNU project.
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone
> who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing,
> even if their piece, in isolation, would not be.
What must I say to communicate the message that the case y
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> gnuplot predates the GNU project.
The earliest copyright date in any of the gnuplot 3.7.1 source files
is 1986; gnuplot 1.0.3 was relased November 16/17 that year in a series
of postings to net.sources.
The only mention of any year between 1980
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:01:07PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 09:23, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
> > the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
> > with such a license.
>
Title: TugaMail.com
Registo | Ajuda | Contacto | Privacidade | Condições de
utilização
20 matches
Mail list logo
