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
While we're cleaning up, it might be a good idea to clarify the
license, even if we don't switch.
Regardless of our past statements, lyx is not GPL, but quasi-GPL.
The act of releasing LyX under the GPL while it dependent upon xforms
has two interpetations:
1) we're complete idiots and in viol
12 matches
Mail list logo
