On Tuesday 04 September 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Hi Sunnz,
>
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> > > If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the
> > > GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones.
> >
> > GNU GPL, however, only grants the right t
blah blah blah
You are worse than a mother in law. Shut up already. Your drivel
stopped being amusing 178000 emails ago.
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:18:33PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Hi Sunnz,
>
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> > > If the person chooses t
> > As far as I know the 3-term BSD license is totally dead, except in
> > NetBSD, where their group still pushes developers to place new code
> > under a full 4-term license. Sometimes we reluctantly include such
> > code, hoping that one day this situation can be improved.
> >
>
> The 4 term l
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:16:35 -0600
Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of
> > curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't
> > find any license.
>
> The license on that code says:
>
> * 1. Redistri
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 06:16:35PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> As far as I know the 3-term BSD license is totally dead, except in
> NetBSD, where their group still pushes developers to place new code
> under a full 4-term license. Sometimes we reluctantly include such
> code, hoping that one
> I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of
> curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't
> find any license.
The license on that code says:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of condition
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:40:30 -0500
Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong wrong wrong.
>
> You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is.
> You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience.
>
> "I interpret that downloading mp3s is like tot
Hi Sunnz,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> > If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's
> > conditions, not the BSD ones.
>
> GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under
> certain conditions), but not re-license, right?
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:08:46PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > Are you lying intentionally?
>
> Given that you live in a parallel world where everything is *^-1, I'm
> saying the truth. Fine, good that you realize that.
I don't think you two are adding much to the common knowledge at this
poi
Thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake on Tue, 4 Sep 2007
20:52:59 +0100:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > > I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any
> > > reputable dictionary (legal or not),
> >
> > Show those. Besides
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any
> > reputable dictionary (legal or not),
>
> Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG.
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
>
> Hence the meaning of ALTERNATI
Thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake on Tue, 4 Sep 2007
18:38:09 +0100:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > >On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
2007/9/5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> > 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the
> > > software, neither affects him, but if he d
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices.
> >> > You can get http
On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices.
>> > You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
>>
>> Wow. Let's all go practice law
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's
conditions, not the BSD ones.
Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of
converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it.
speaking of moot and pol
2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the
> software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it
> under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as
> dual licensed. Act
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the
> > software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it
> > under the terms of the GPL v2
On 9/2/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dude stop yapping you are making an ass of yourself. We know your
> favorite audience is you. Show us your bar and people might listen to
> you again.
>
> As stated before, your opinion is not relevant. Your interpretation is
> not relevant
Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess he means writing own additions/modifications (thus creating a
> combined or derivative work), and releasing those *own*
> additions/modifications under the GPL. In the end, you can use the
> combined/derivative work only to the extent that's p
Hi!
I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks.
So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion.
I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD
users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD
people, and obvi
Hi,
On Sat, 01.09.2007 at 00:42:25 -0600, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
> > dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the
> > licensing
> > deal on terms of either first or second or both lice
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:18AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
> The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last
> paragraph above (starting with "Alternatively") as explicit permission
> to replace all of the previous material (starting with "Redistribution
> and use") with th
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind
>assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any
>interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words...
>
> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't
be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text
(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html):
And therein lies the problem. Unless a developer went through a
univers
>> /Putting it down to the legal point of view it implies even a "XOR" eg.
>> one or the other choice, it's kind of missing the "may also" part but
>
>
> Inexistant word in this case, so that reasoning doesn't apply.
>
>> that, so whatev
On 9/2/07, Dave Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne
> Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any
> copyright law in place. It includes the U.S.
Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who ca
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> ^ (all line)
> > * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> ^^
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a
paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received.
^^^
(1)
Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of t
Dude stop yapping you are making an ass of yourself. We know your
favorite audience is you. Show us your bar and people might listen to
you again.
As stated before, your opinion is not relevant. Your interpretation is
not relevant. In fact everything you have said is not relevant.
On Sun, Sep
Blah blah blah
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 04:42:42PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > > You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
> > > enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one lice
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
> > enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
> So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
> code and GPL-on
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> >> > "a
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >> Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
> >> to the GPL (thus forcing you to open u
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
>> enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
>So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
>code and GP
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>[...]
>
>>Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law,
>>a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is
>>pulled in the MOMENT a "Copyright (c)
On Sep 2, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to
adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^
thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra spake:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^
That is false,
Salut,
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other
users.
>
> If your problem is that people don't give back, go knock on certain vendors
who
> profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything ba
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in another message:
> Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear enough. The copyright notice
> tells you that *alternatively* (this means if you don't want to use
> the BSD) under the terms of the GNU GPL v2.
>
> Alternative implies choice, you choose which alternative you
> You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
> enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
code and GPL-only modifications) have?
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >Hi,
>
> >In order to make my mind about this subject...
>
> >You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
> > * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
>
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
>> >"at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
>> >license
Hi!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>Hi,
>In order to make my mind about this subject...
>You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
> * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
> * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
> * drivers/net/wireless/at
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:15:51AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
> > Its "alternatively" not "at the same time"
> NO. You are using the word out of context, put it back in there and it
> is simple:
>
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> * GNU General Publ
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
> to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^
That is false, only if software is distributed.
>
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
> >> licenses.
> >> >
> >> > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
>
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:13:07PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
>On 9/2/07, Todd T. Fries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the
>> sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words "without
>> modification"?
>> As I explain
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>[...]
>Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law,
>a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is
>pulled in the MOMENT a "Copyright (c) YYMM author" decleration is
>made.
In some
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:54:38AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>[...]
> BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with
>no availability of source -
Which is exactly one characteristic of BSD vs. GPL, that BSD doesn't
require you to distribute source should yo
Hi,
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> > > > Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the
>> question.
>> > > > Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPL
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
>> licenses.
>> >
>> > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
>>
>> And... you are a judge?
>
> Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
>
> The
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[..]
> I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that
> 3 of those files have *alternative* licensing.
Yes, indeed you can choose between the two licenses, but you CANNOT
*REMOVE* either of them. Only the Copyright holder who put that lice
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
> > > > licenses.
> > > >
> > > > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth
On 9/2/07, Todd T. Fries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the
> sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words "without
> modification"?
>
> As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago ..
>
> adding GPL to BSD is sad to t
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a lega
Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the
sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words "without
modification"?
As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago ..
adding GPL to BSD is sad to the BSD people (we can't use the GPL code then)
adding GPL an
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses.
> >
> > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
>
> And... you are a judge?
Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
The copyright not
On 01/09/07, Martin Schrvder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you
> > would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as
> > far I as understand. This is how it's
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
> > > licenses.
> > >
> > > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
> >
> > And... you are a judge?
>
> Theo, be as unreasonable as you w
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question.
> > > > Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted
>
2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you
> would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as
> far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and
> NetBSD, IIRC.
This has to agreed b
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > > > > "at
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can
> > get
> > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
> >
> > Noun
> > alternative (plural alternatives)
> > 1. A situation which allows a choic
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can
> > > get
> > > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
> > >
> > > Noun
> > > alternative (plural alternatives)
> > > 1. A situation wh
On 01/09/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > > > > "at your c
I will have to quote the license once more.
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
* above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
^
> Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
>
> Noun
> alternative (plural alternatives)
> 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities.
> 2. A choice between two or mo
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > > > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> > > > lic
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> > > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
> > >
> > > So if they chose to distribu
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
> >
> > So if they chose to distribute those
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT
> convert GPL'd code to proprietary code.
>
> BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be "Totally Free" - specifically because
> you can convert the code to proprietary code.
Y
Gents,
the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his
code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here.
Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way
as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will
be
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > That is entirely false.
> Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
> except remove the copyright.
>
> ... but I do not see anything in the license that
> requires preserving the licen
On Saturday 01 September 2007 07:52:45 David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
> > the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
> > conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
> >
> > It i
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:42 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[responding to Dmitrij Czarkoff:]
> > So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
> > dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the
> > licensing
> > deal on terms of either first or second or
> Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
> except remove the copyright.
ISC has no say in the matter of "interpreting" the legal document.
Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights
they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the publ
On 01/09/07, Siju George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
> > they preserved the copyrights as required.
> >
>
> Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
t
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:59:39AM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
The usual explanation is "man strings". But for example:
*--*
artemis:~
{20} % strings /dev/fs/C/WINDOWS/syst
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/1/07 12:29 PM, Siju George wrote:
> On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
>> they preserved the copyrights as required.
>>
>
> Could somebody please explain
Siju George wrote:
> On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
>> they preserved the copyrights as required.
>>
>
> Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
man strings
:-)
/Alexander
'strings' is a common Unix utility used
to find actual words or series of letters grouped together
in a file. You can run strings in binary executable
files to see any text embedded in the executable.
This can sometimes be used to find versions of
some executables as well as for other reasons
On 9/1/07, Siju George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
> > they preserved the copyrights as required.
> >
>
> Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
str
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Siju George wrote:
Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ which strings
/usr/bin/strings
See strings(1) :-)
--
Antti Harri
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
That is entirely false.
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
First, I wish to appologize.
While I am actually fairly familiar with the GPL,
I am not intimate with either the various forms of BSD License or
the ISC.
Somehow jumping back and forth between them all on wikipedia before
my original
post I missed the clause that appears to be i
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
> they preserved the copyrights as required.
>
Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
Thank you so much
Kind Regards
Siju
On 9/1/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
> >
> > So if they chose to distribute those 3 files
> In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
>
> So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU
> GPL v2, it is correct to change
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
* drivers/net/wire
> If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code
> should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
should, or must?
must.
Another argument has popped up elsewhere (by some poster, on
kerneltrap.org), pointing out that the GPL itself may also require
dual-licensed software to
> On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
> > notice, not the license itself,
>
> That is entirely false.
>
> If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you
> cannot simply do wha
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> > For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
> > the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
> > conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
> >
> > It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author
Wrong wrong wrong.
You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is.
You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience.
"I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now" doesn't
make it so. Try it and see what happens.
Let me try once more to
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree..
You're entitled to say stupid things.
>The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
>The license is a part of the copyrighted work.
>It gran
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
> notice, not the license itself,
That is entirely false.
If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you
cannot simply do whatever you wish w
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
[..]
>The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
And the license request you to preserve the license, thus if you do not
preserve the license you are not complying with it.
>The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
>
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a lega
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code
should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
> > because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
> > they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two
> > licenses can use the
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
