On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
> I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
> with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law
>
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
> impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early
> stuff).
For some of the early stuff it's not that interesting as certain pieces
don
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
> so why not get it and fix the license?
Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian
(license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of lic
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
> > It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> > the law, and wrote the qualification to
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > GPL? (probably not)
> > GPL with "may be linked to xforms"?
> > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
>
> It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> the law, and wrote the qualification to the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > > the licence, wouldn't it?
> > No. Permission was never obtained to switch
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
>> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
>> > right to distribute this? And what abo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > the licence, wouldn't it?
>
> No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
> license. Lyx has always had a big hole in
> the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
so why not get it and fix the license?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as
> > you put proper exclusion in the license.
> > I have done it several times with other sof
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
> To be honest, I
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
>> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
>> as you put proper exclusion in the license.
>>
>> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
>> (legal).
>
> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as
> you put proper exclusion in the license.
>
> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
> (legal).
>
> Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on
bcc5.5
> that
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as
> you put proper exclusion in the license.
>
> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
> (legal).
But that would still mean y
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
>
> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
> xforms. The que
"Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence shoul
> Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty
> trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)
This would be a very good idea indeed.
Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one
on the website is the latest one)
One thing I
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
>
> Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
>
> Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
> Ruurd> versio
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
Ruurd> versions of Perl and Python are now included.
Did
20 matches
Mail list logo
