On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 04:25:36PM +0300, fcana...@gmail.com wrote:
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
> General Public License, version 2 or later.
>
> Fatihcan Atay
Thanks, it's in. Pavel
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
https://list
Am Freitag, den 21.06.2019, 01:20 +0200 schrieb Niko Strijbol:
> Hi,
>
> This was requested on the po mailing list:
>
> I hereby grant permission to licence my contributions to LyX under
> the
> GNU General Public Licence, version 2 or later.
Thanks, Niko. You are in the credits now.
Looking fo
> ?: Jürgen Spitzmüller mailto:sp...@lyx.org>>
> ??: Chinese (Simplified) translation for LyX???
>
> As you wish.
Hi Winfred,
thanks for your update.
There are few bits which needs your approval:
attached are changes generated by your update to lib/layouttranslations
file
Am Samstag, den 28.07.2018, 01:07 + schrieb 黄 克鲁:
> I hereby grant permission to use my work for LyX under the license
> GPL version 2 or later.
thank you. You're now credited.
Jürgen
>
> Winfred Huang
>
> 发自我的 iPhone
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2016, 23:52 +0200 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> Am 25.10.2016 um 02:10 schrieb Joel Kulesza:
>
> > I hereby grant the right to publish my work for LyX under the
> > license GPL
> > version 2 or later.
>
> Many thanks Joel.
>
> As soon as your first patch goes in for LyX we will add
Am 25.10.2016 um 02:10 schrieb Joel Kulesza:
I hereby grant the right to publish my work for LyX under the license GPL
version 2 or later.
Many thanks Joel.
As soon as your first patch goes in for LyX we will add you to the LyX
credits as an author of LyX.
regards Uwe
Hashini Senaratne wrote:
> Modification for Licensing:
>
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
> General Public License, version 2 or later.
Thanks :) P
Modification for Licensing:
I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
General Public License, version 2 or later.
Thank you
Hashini Senaratne
Hashini Senaratne wrote:
> My work will be released under open source license, GPL 3.0. as I agrees
> with Google Summer of Code 2013.
> So my contributions to LyX are licensed under GPL v3.
The problem is that LyX is at the moment licensed under GPL 2.
If you agree with this licensing, could you
Jim Rotmalm wrote:
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
> under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.
thanks, i added you to the contributors.
pavel
Many thanks,
I added you now to our CREDITS.
regards Uwe
hatim ali wrote:
>
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
> the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.
thanks, added.
pavel
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, José Matos wrote:
PS: I have been absent from discussion because in Bromarv port 25 was
blocked and answering over the webmail interface is tedious and sloppy.
:-)
Good luck with catching up on the discussions...
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44
On Wednesday 15 August 2007 16:21:31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From me too!
I hate to say "me too" but in this case it is impossible to avoid. :-)
> /C
PS: I have been absent from discussion because in Bromarv port 25 was blocked
and answering over the webmail interface is tedious and sloppy
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andre Poenitz wrote:
PS: Martin: I really appreciated the hospitality - no matter how the
complaints on too much too well tasting food sounded like. Please also
tell Liisa.
From me too!
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~
JMarc, you did trick me on doing the PT translation! But I'm glad you did
it-:) I actually enjoyed doing it, so I hope I will be able to do another
translation at the next year's meeting (although certainly not the polish
one!)... and nagging Andre off the keyboard -:)
And thank you Martin and
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:54:44PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> Susana Barbosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> I grant permission to license any and all contributions I've made to
> >>> LyX under the Gnu GPL version 2 or later.
> >>
> >> Thank you Susana. Will you ever forgive me?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Susana Barbosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I grant permission to license any and all contributions I've made to
>>> LyX under the Gnu GPL version 2 or later.
>>
>> Thank you Susana. Will
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Susana Barbosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I grant permission to license any and all contributions I've made to
>> LyX under the Gnu GPL version 2 or later.
>
> Thank you Susana. Will you ever forgive me?
I tricked her into doing the pl tran
Susana Barbosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I grant permission to license any and all contributions I've made to
> LyX under the Gnu GPL version 2 or later.
Thank you Susana. Will you ever forgive me?
JMarc
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All my contributions to the LyX project fall under the
> Gnu General Public License, version 2 or later.
Thanks, Peter. Feel free to suggest an improved description of your
contribution. (In fact, many of these descriptions are woefully out of date.)
htt
Anders Ekberg wrote:
> For the record:
> I agree to license my contributions to LyX under the Gnu General
> Public License, version 2 or later.
Thanks, Anders.
--
Angus
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:35:02AM +0100, Asger Kunuk Ottar Alstrup wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> > Does the COPYING file apply to all the doc/ documentation that
> > don't have any license in them?
> >
> > For example, I don't see any republishing or reuse license for
>
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Asger Kunuk Ottar Alstrup wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> > Does the COPYING file apply to all the doc/ documentation that don't have
> > any license in them?
> >
> > For example, I don't see any republishing or reuse license for
> > lib/doc/Customizati
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> Does the COPYING file apply to all the doc/ documentation that don't have
> any license in them?
>
> For example, I don't see any republishing or reuse license for
> lib/doc/Customization.lyx.
It is a good question. When the documentation was written,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:13:47PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> (still...if I answer 'yes' it looks a bit silly...)
Urm... since when do you care? ;-)
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:22:55AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The preferred operation of law is striking, not carving exceptions.
> "clause rejected" complies with this. "link with xforms" doesn't.
OK, I think I see what you're saying: the implicit license people used
was effectively,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:45:23AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anyway, I think that we should not be overly concerned by that. Let's
> > just stick with what FSF proposes.
>
> Again, I think the change right now would be a bad idea. We don't have
> a problem, have nothing to gain, and
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:23:07PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I guess so. My default interface is always: "No!"
Lars, would you please _not_ apply the following patch...
SCNR,
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "dochawk" == dochawk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dochawk> I'd stick to what we have until there's a problem or the
dochawk> other language becomes universal.
Note that what we have now in the code is the wording from the FSF.
John's patch is intended to update the www site to read the sam
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:39:41AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> right. We went through that before I wrote these.
>
> The bottom line, I think, is that we have nothing to gain by the
> change, may not even legally be able to make the change, and that there
> is a potential downside to th
> "dochawk" == dochawk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dochawk> John jabbered,
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:12:17PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I'm not really certain that we can do that.
>> the new text is the text directly suggested on the GNU website and
>> has been checked by the
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I propose the following to match COPYING. IT's also clearer IMHO
I'd say: just commit it.
JMarc
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> | I'm not trying to start a GPL-vs-BSD flamewar here, but why
Lars> not | release it under the modified BSD license? Then the
Lars> linking problem | would be out of the world once and for all,
Lars> and its pretty much in | li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
AR> Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model of how to
AR> allow linking to Qt2 on Windows? On Unix there is no problem with
AR> either GPL or QPL as I understand it. So we would still need to
AR> mention Qt2. What hap
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:23:21PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
>
> Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model of how to
> allow linking to Qt2 on Windows?
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if the general exception is good. law is weird.
I'm not eve
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > To limit it to XForms is perhaps not good, we should add a clause for
> > QT2 as well.
>
> Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> To limit it to XForms is perhaps not good, we should add a clause for
> QT2 as well.
Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
> And as time arises other gui tollkits that is used.
yes
> | I'm a lot more comfortable without adding the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 06:12:17PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not really certain that we can do that.
the new text is the text directly suggested on the GNU website and has
been checked by their laywers.
Again, lyx/COPYING already has this.
I assume you're a laywer - are you a cop
asger added,
> > Since I understand that a bug in the Insert->URL command is likely to mean
> > an update sooner rather than later, perhaps you could take the opportunity
> > to sort out the COPYING problem too. Personally, I'd much rather that LyX
> > was simply released under the GPL, but if
Now that we talk about the license... someone (Amir?) commented that all
code has copyright 98...
there are actually pieces from 96...
I think a sed 's///' is inorder in here...
Laters,
D@
> 1. The COPYING file is now *extremely* confusing. "Patching" the GNU
> license means that LyX is now distributed under an unfamiliar license, and
> one of dubious value.
The license as such is not patched. We clarify how we read it, but did not
change it.
Yes, the file is patched, but we are
> I had another thoguth on the way in this morning. We are stuck with an
> ugly kludge of a license; all my text does was explain it. Should we
> ad a line requiring that patches must permit a switch to the artistic
> license (or whatever?) so we can go to a clean, standard license in the
>
> I updated the COPYING file with
> the text from Rick.
I had another thoguth on the way in this morning. We are stuck with an
ugly kludge of a license; all my text does was explain it. Should we
ad a line requiring that patches must permit a switch to the artistic
license (or whatever?) so
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 11:03:10AM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> asger averred,
>
> > I will never accept to put my code under a license that
> > excludes the FSF (or anybody else.)
>
> I'm not suggesting that we actually do it. But sometimes (e.g.,
> lignux), it's a delightful fanta
asger averred,
> I will never accept to put my code under a license that
> excludes the FSF (or anybody else.)
I'm not suggesting that we actually do it. But sometimes (e.g.,
lignux), it's a delightful fantasy . . . :)
--
On 14-Jan-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> I've thought of license terms in the past that specifically exclude
>>> the FSF . . . but i've never really thought of being explicit about
>>> "muttonhead," thought "totalitarian
> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've thought of license terms in the past that specifically exclude
>> the FSF . . . but i've never really thought of being explicit about
>> "muttonhead," thought "totalitarian" and "imperialistic" have come
>> up . . .
As
> I've thought of license terms in the past that specifically exclude the
> FSF . . . but i've never really thought of being explicit about
> "muttonhead," thought "totalitarian" and "imperialistic" have come up .
> . .
I know it's soon Friday, but I want to clarify one thing:
I will never ac
john jabbered,
> On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 11:11:37AM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> > "2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software,
> > source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to
> > which LyX may be linked. Particularly, clauses *** of t
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 03:15:21PM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> btw, since my licenses are inactive to save $700/year in fees, my
> suggestion isn't legal advice, etc.
Okay, so we add another endnote with that as a disclaimer. "Crafted
by a LyX developer who is an inactive lawyer [he
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 11:11:37AM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> "2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software,
> source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to
> which LyX may be linked. Particularly, clauses *** of the GPL are
> rejected i
> My wife is a lawyer and I went to law school with her (sorta...)
> Anyway I have asked her earlier (in the contents of the whole
> Qt-KDE-GPL-RedHat mess). She pretty much said the exact same thing
> than you Rick.
I hope so :) I'd hate to think it changed since I went :)
>She wouldnt of
The other good news is that 1.2 will be linkable with GNOME, meaning that
people will be able to make it truly GNU. Except that only their personal copy
will be gnu, because other people's copies will be linked with xforms. This is
confusing!
-Amir
Hi
My wife is a lawyer and I went to law school with her (sorta...)
Anyway I have asked her earlier (in the contents of the whole
Qt-KDE-GPL-RedHat mess). She pretty much said the exact same thing
than you Rick. She wouldnt offer legal council even if I volunteered
doing dishes for a week..
Any
55 matches
Mail list logo
