Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

L requires you to do this? It seems that this link is apropos: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! In cyberspace no one can hear your stomach rumble.

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

e-compiler, if we only shipped compiled versions, but it isn't a problem here. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! The Illuminati aren't out to get you. What was your name?

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

n't know if the switch had anything to do with the font fiasco... teTeX was just better. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! Guns don't kill people off-line readers do.

Re: non-software violates social contract?

gested version of PS, for easy interpretation. I do not believe it has any control structure (unless you include javascript, which it allows). Type 1 was similarly designed as a simplification to make ATM work easily. I think that for anything programmatic, you have to use Type 3 -- Al

Re: The Open Source movement and Free Software movement are not the same

Open Source trademark show. Naturally, it has the same problem. I really need a Schadenfreude tagline -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! "Die: To stop sinning suddenly."

Re: BSD license, core libraries, and NetBSD

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What > is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a > zeroth clause? Take a look at http://www.closedbsd.org/pub/COPYRIGHT for an examp

Re: Berkeley DB curious licensing practice

You can redistribute BDB alone however you want. If you are redistributing it with an application, the app has to be open source. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! I was up above, now I'm down in it