Tim Peters wrote:
>
> [M.-A. Lemburg]
> > Say, what kind of clause is needed in licenses to make them explicitly
> > GPL-compatible without harming the license conditions in all other
> > cases where the GPL is not involved ?
>
> You can dual-license (see, e.g., Perl).
Right and it looks as if t
[M.-A. Lemburg]
> Say, what kind of clause is needed in licenses to make them explicitly
> GPL-compatible without harming the license conditions in all other
> cases where the GPL is not involved ?
You can dual-license (see, e.g., Perl).
[Gregor Hoffleit]
> I didn't even knew there will be a 1.6.1 release. Will there be a
> change in the license ?
There will be a 1.6.1 release if and only if CNRI and the FSF reach
agreement. If and when that happens, we (PythonLabs) will build a 1.6.1
release for CNRI with the new license, and th
[Gregor Hoffleit]
> ...
> I know that most of you guys are fed up with license discussions. Still,
> I dare to bring this back to your attentions:
Don't apologize -- the license remains an important issue to the Python
developers too. We rarely mention it in public anymore simply because
there's
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:34:37PM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:14:17 +0100, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So... if you link glibc with files compiled by a NON-GNU compiler, the
> > resulting binary *has to be* glibc [I meant GPL] ? That's, well, fucked,
> > i
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:14:17 +0100, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... if you link glibc with files compiled by a NON-GNU compiler, the
> resulting binary *has to be* glibc ? That's, well, fucked, if you pardon my
> french. But it's not my code, so all I can do is sigh ;-P
Thomas,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:24:03PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Is there any reason for you to include this choice of law clause anyway, if
> > you don't live in Virginia ?
>
> I have to make the governing law the German law since that is where
> my company is located.
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:34:07PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > Here's the "problem" I have: I want to put my code under a license
> > similar to the Python 2 license (that is including the choice of
> > law clause which caused all this trouble).
>
> Why don't you si
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:34:07PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Here's the "problem" I have: I want to put my code under a license
> similar to the Python 2 license (that is including the choice of
> law clause which caused all this trouble).
Why don't you simply remove the first sentence of th
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:51:14PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > >
> > > If somebody could give me a legal advice that the Python license is in
> > > fact
> > > compatible with the GPL, and if this was accepted by the guys at
> > > debian-le
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:27:37PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> (By the way, even the FSF uses a similar clause in the glibc license. The
> glibc license is the usual pointer to the GPL plus this clause:
> "As a special exception, if you link this library with files
>compiled with a GNU
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian's unstable tree currently includes both Python 1.5.2 as well as 2.0.
> Python 1.5.2 things are packaged as python-foo-bar, while Python 2.0 is
> available as python2-foo-bar. It's possible to install either 1.5.2 or 2.0
> or both of them.
My
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:51:14PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> >
> > If somebody could give me a legal advice that the Python license is in fact
> > compatible with the GPL, and if this was accepted by the guys at
> > debian-legal@lists.debian.org, I would happily adopt
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
>
> If somebody could give me a legal advice that the Python license is in fact
> compatible with the GPL, and if this was accepted by the guys at
> debian-legal@lists.debian.org, I would happily adopt this opinion and that
> would make (b) go away as well.
>
> Until this h
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 04:45:57PM -0500, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
> A more critical issue might be why people haven't adopted 2.0 yet;
> there seems little reason is there to continue using 1.5.2, yet I
> still see questions on the XML-SIG, for example, from people who
> haven't upgraded. Is it tha
15 matches
Mail list logo
