On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
> summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
They'd have helped me either keep up with what's going on without
actually looking at the list or at lea
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
> If this really is an big issue, e-mail me with the sizes of the icons,
> what the icons are supposed to represent, and the name of the icons.
> [But please, don't send me the icons themselves... I've not looked at
> them, and I'd rather not.]
>
>
Hi,
There is some nice code here:
http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/
When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like
licenses and refused to create one. But:
"It's mine, but if you manage to get your hands on it, keep it
for Christ's sake!"
...
the key point is that we
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> > Of course it is possible for proprietary software to compete with free
> > software without employing GPL components. It's also possible for one
> > commercial spreadsheet to compete
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:12:58 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had
> vanished - Francesco Poli > So did I.
>
> Thanks for that
You are welcome! :)
> and the comments off-list. What would the period
> summaries have done to help you with the
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> If the public benefit of interoperability outweighs the harm done to a
> copyright holder by permitting competitive use of the interface they
> created, how can it not outweigh the harm to him of permitting
> cooperative use?
Wh
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I do want my government and my cellphone to run on Free Software,
> and neither will happen in my lifetime if there isn't a commercially
> viable transition strategy.
If you want to work towards a situation where everything is a
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Temporarily, until I here back from either Don or upstream, I have
> made my own icons,
Heh. Your icons are probably superior to the ones I would have made...
;-)
> but I am not sure how to proceed - just a note in the copyright
> file, saying "I made
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you
> > > build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse.
> > > Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrot
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The GPL puts restrictions on whole works.
>
> True.
>
> > "Requires to run" is a useful heuristic to determine what a whole
> > work is.
>
> Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by t
> > First: There is no such legal entity as "Debian" which is doing such
> > things. "Debian" is a trademark of SPI, and there are people who use
> > that trademark, but that's not the same thing.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:55:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You can replace "Debian" with "SPI"
> > Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
> > Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You missed the part about Eclipse requiring Kaffe to run.
The license on Eclipse doesn't make an issue of this.
The license on Ka
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:00:03 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > If the public benefit of interoperability outweighs the harm done to a
> > copyright holder by permitting competitive use of the interface they
> > cr
> > Why assume that interoperability is the only benefit from release under
> > copyleft?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:45:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that the public benefit of
> interoperability, used in a number of the decisions that I've cited to
> j
Walter Landry wrote:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse
is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe".
And once again, you miss the point that Eclipse and Kaffe together
make a whole work.
The make an aggregate work
15 matches
Mail list logo
