On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Mike Mientus wrote:
You should mention a recent article about LyX. Look for it in the December
2006 Linux Journal. The article, "LyX and Lulu" is on pages 64-68.
I've added a link to it here:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/PressAboutLyX
cheers
/Christian
--
Christian
You should mention a recent article about LyX. Look for it in the December
2006 Linux Journal. The article, "LyX and Lulu" is on pages 64-68.
Regards,
Michael
_
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio p
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:02:35AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Leuven, E. wrote:
>
> >> We had a lawyer, Richard Hawkins, who explained that this was
> >> indeed how the legal world would interpret this licence.
> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lyx-devel&m=104635662605797&w=2
> >
> > a good
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Angus Leeming wrote:
>> I think that this page should mention the native Aqua port and
>> should probably mention Ruurd's native Win32 port also. Opinions?
>> Objections?
Angus> Actually, I think that this page is redundant. It has
Leuven, E. wrote:
"In addition, as a special exception, the LyX Team gives permission to
link the code of this program with any third party, closed source
library and distribute linked combinations including the two."
then I fail to see why we don't say that.
because not everybody agrees on t
> I can introduce such a function into XForms in a matter of minutes.
and anyone could
> If I do so, does the lyx licence become 'de facto GPL'?
that would be an easy way to change licenses.
we could also turn it around: introduce a function that references to a closed library
and the license
Leuven, E. wrote:
>> But, my point is that "a special exception to do something that no
>> longer needs a special exception to do it" is meaningless. If the
>> clause is meaningless then does it have any legal standing and, if
>> not, does the licence not revert naturally to the GPL anyway?
>
> t
> But, my point is that "a special exception to do something that no
> longer needs a special exception to do it" is meaningless. If the
> clause is meaningless then does it have any legal standing and, if
> not, does the licence not revert naturally to the GPL anyway?
the license still allows one
Leuven, E. wrote:
> but i thought that license changes (like reverting to the GPL) need
> to be accepted by every contributor (which prevented us changing the
> license to the general version you suggest above in the first place)
But, my point is that "a special exception to do something that no
l
> "In addition, as a special exception, the LyX Team gives permission to
> link the code of this program with any third party, closed source
> library and distribute linked combinations including the two."
> then I fail to see why we don't say that.
because not everybody agrees on this (andre in p
Leuven, E. wrote:
>> We had a lawyer, Richard Hawkins, who explained that this was
>> indeed how the legal world would interpret this licence.
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lyx-devel&m=104635662605797&w=2
>
> a good reason for keeping the license as it is...
My tidy mind still finds explici
> We had a lawyer, Richard Hawkins, who explained that this was indeed
> how the legal world would interpret this licence.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lyx-devel&m=104635662605797&w=2
a good reason for keeping the license as it is...
Angus Leeming wrote:
> I think that this page should mention the native Aqua port and
> should probably mention Ruurd's native Win32 port also. Opinions?
> Objections?
Actually, I think that this page is redundant. It has been superceeded
by the "LyX ports" section of http://www.lyx.org/download
> We should go back to what the default GPL blurb should be without
> exceptions. (IMHO)
why not keep it there?
the license says basically that it is okay to link with a closed library (xforms that
is). the license gives therefore a precedent for linking to closed libraries and as
such is not
Leuven, E. wrote:
>> We should go back to what the default GPL blurb should be without
>> exceptions. (IMHO)
>
> why not keep it there?
>
> the license says basically that it is okay to link with a closed
> library (xforms that is). the license gives therefore a precedent
> for linking to closed
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Well, I'd like that too, but can we do so? IANAL and nor are you.
> | We need some informed advice IMO.
>
> GPL without the exception is what we had at the beginning... then we
> had some XForms controversy and since LyX was then written solely
> for XForms we added
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming writes:
>> | How much sense does this make anymore now that XForms is available
>> | under the LGPL? Does sense have anything to do with it? Do the FSF
>> | provide advice?
>
>> We should go back to what the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming writes:
> | How much sense does this make anymore now that XForms is available
> | under the LGPL? Does sense have anything to do with it? Do the FSF
> | provide advice?
> We should go back to what the default GPL blurb should be without
> exceptions. (I
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| How much sense does this make anymore now that XForms is available
| under the LGPL? Does sense have anything to do with it? Do the FSF
| provide advice?
>
| Angus
>
>
| What license applies to LyX?
>
| The LyX license is the GPL version 2 or above. In a
How much sense does this make anymore now that XForms is available
under the LGPL? Does sense have anything to do with it? Do the FSF
provide advice?
Angus
What license applies to LyX?
The LyX license is the GPL version 2 or above. In addition, as a
special exception, the LyX Team gives permiss
I think that this page should mention the native Aqua port and should
probably mention Ruurd's native Win32 port also. Opinions?
Objections?
--
Angus
Allan Rae wrote:
> But there you'll also find a pretty picture to help muddy the waters ;-)
> Allan. (ARRae)
I was expecting a picture Kai, so your's was pretty dissapointing, but
now I understand muddying the waters ;)
Garst
On 8 Jan 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Allan" == Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Allan> Maybe we should either point to the LDN issue with the
> Allan> numbering changes or just reuse the numbering diagram. Although
> Allan> I think I left out prerelease numbers in that dia
> "Allan" == Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Allan> Maybe we should either point to the LDN issue with the
Allan> numbering changes or just reuse the numbering diagram. Although
Allan> I think I left out prerelease numbers in that diagram. Might be
Allan> the october issue I think.
Whe
> "Lior" == Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lior> The above suggestions are contained in the attached patch.
Thanks. I applied it.
JMarc
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Lior Silberman wrote:
>
> On 4 Jan 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > "Lior" == Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Lior> Also, in the version name example, it may better to continue in
> > Lior> order:
> >
> > Lior> O lyx-1.1.6pre1.tar.gar -- potenti
On 4 Jan 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Lior" == Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Lior> Also, in the version name example, it may better to continue in
> Lior> order:
>
> Lior> O lyx-1.1.6pre1.tar.gar -- potentially unstable test of the
> Lior> 1.1.6 release
>
> Done
> "Lior" == Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lior> About the version scheme, if this is for the non-technical
Lior> audience, it may be easier to avoid technial language, and have:
Lior> --- There have been many changes 'under the hood'. From the user
Lior> perspective, the most im
.1 but we
> Lior> document version 1.0, which leads to some discrepancies between
> Lior> current policies and the documentation:
>
> Lior> 1. http://www.lyx.org/about/features.php3
>
> I tried to update this one a bit. Tell me what should be changed.
>
About the vers
screpancies between
Lior> current policies and the documentation:
Lior> 1. http://www.lyx.org/about/features.php3
I tried to update this one a bit. Tell me what should be changed.
Lior>b) List of Features:
Lior> [Since 1.0, we've made our way to 1.1.5 (and, very soon, 1.1.6),
Lior>
Hi!
I've been reading the LyX website, and found out some interesting things.
We're deeply into version 1.1 but we document version 1.0, which leads to
some discrepancies between current policies and the documentation:
1. http://www.lyx.org/about/features.php3
a) Quoted verbatim
31 matches
Mail list logo
