On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote:
> From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial
> software.
You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may
charge money for GPL derived programs but if they distribute them
they must provide access to t
I just noticed that "Fedora Core 1" was released today (I think) -
see http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/.
Is this what would-have-been-called "Redhat 10" (or Redhat 9.1 or whatever)?
It certainly looks that way, except I don't see a big fuss about this
release (we always had a couple of
Oron Peled wrote:
Its yet to stand up in court though.
What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
against its license terms? You must be drinking.
The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library
makes your software a derived work. As I said before, thi
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library
> >makes your software a derived work. As I said before, this case
> >looks clear enough to most people that even infringing companies
> >prefer to release code and
Would you like to know when RH published theirs end-of-life policy for RHL? - one year
ago:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/01/28/2149203
Regards,
Vitaly
***
Information contained in this email message is
Nadav Har'El wrote:
> It certainly looks that way, except I don't see a big fuss about this
> release (we always had a couple of weeks of rumors before a Redhat release...).
There were no rumors, because they announced this date a long time
ago...
--
Eli Marmor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO, Founder
Ne
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if li
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
>>>Its yet to stand up in court though.
>>>
> Merely linking with a library does not make your software derived work
> of that company! How can that be?
>
> Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> LGPL, but for the sake of discussion). Accordi
> On Sunday 02 November 2003 09:05, Shai Bentin wrote:
>>> I can't work with vmware in full screen mode. It complains its missing
>>> DGA
>>> extensions on my XServer. Is this a setup issue on my X? do I have to
>>> compile a new XServer with DGA extensions? What is DGA anyway? Any
>>> ideas?
>
>>D
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> LGPL, but for the sake of discussion).
It is LGPL precisely to prevent the legal problems of linking against GPL
code (just like glibc is LGPL'ed for the same reas
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> I just noticed that "Fedora Core 1" was released today (I think) -
> see http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/.
>
> Is this what would-have-been-called "Redhat 10" (or Redhat 9.1 or whatever)?
> It certainly looks that way, except I don't see a big
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >>
>
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if li
As it is clear that I have been misunderstood, I'll try to explain again.
Wine is LGPL. As such, it is not covered by this discussion.
Let's then take the wine code, and fork it. We'll call the new program
"Winw", for "Winw is not Wine". Winw is licensed under the GPL (as the
GPL is LGPL compat
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oron Peled wrote:
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if
>>I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
>>code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
>>and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
>>which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> No, this is absu
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:06:44AM -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > I just noticed that "Fedora Core 1" was released today (I think) -
> > see http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/.
> >
> > Is this what would-have-been-called "Redhat 10" (or Redh
Oded Arbel wrote:
I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
No, this
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Oron Peled wrote:
Its yet to stand up in court though.
What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
against its license terms? You must be drinking.
The only thing a court may n
Hi!
This thing has gone a bit out of control than what I wanted. What I wanted
was that people will send complaint letters and that all. But apparently
the Orange service has some greater issues, as others have testified and
noticed.
In any case, you can read in:
http://www.whatsup.org.il/modul
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:03, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is my opinion: any one of t
Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you are allowed to
make a de
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you ar
> Oded Arbel wrote:
>>While taking it a bit to the extreme (and I don't think anybody would try
>>to enforce it) with our hypothetic Winw, the user who tries to run Win32
>>application might be considered infringing on the Winw GPL license just
>> by
>>using it. I guess this is one of the reasons
Oded Arbel wrote:
Oded Arbel wrote:
While taking it a bit to the extreme (and I don't think anybody would try
to enforce it) with our hypothetic Winw, the user who tries to run Win32
application might be considered infringing on the Winw GPL license just
by
using it. I guess this is one
"Oded Arbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course there is ! Using the software implies copying - you copy it into
> your harddisk and then you copy it into your computer's dynamic memory
> where it can be run.
GPL specifically says,
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
--
Ol
>>The fact that you got your hands on a packaged software product does not
>>mean you can use it.
>>
> Sure it does. That's what the "First sale doctrine" means. Once I sold
> you a piece of software, I cannot tell you what to do, and what not to
> do, with it.
>
>> if that were the case, then If
Dear Mr. Zak,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I was sorry to learn that, you have experienced some difficulties while trying to use
our web site, because you are using other browsers than "Internet explorer" browser.
I would like to mention, that as an advanced communication company, we are interest
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 21:40, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Micha Feigin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:03, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego I
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 09:10, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote:
> > From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial
> > software.
>
> You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may
> charge money for GPL derived program
Hello all,
The short version:
I want to save myself time and effort by asking on this list if anyone
is successfully communicating with the "Advice Partner PR600" UPS on
Linux.
The long version:
I have a UPS, its manufactured by Advice and its model is the Partner
PR600. Currently it's connecte
I have a similar model, I don't remember the exact model number, manufactured
by Advice, and using NUT (Network UPS Tools) I am able to work with it on
connected to my Linux box, shutting down the computer after predefined time /
battery status, automatically.
The module I use is called "powerco
31 matches
Mail list logo
