Re: Licensing, was elvis package
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> wrote:
> > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly?
> > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like
> > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that
> > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF's protection. So are
> > we missing something?
>
> If you'd manage to read the copyright on rpm, you'd see:
>
> (1) It's written by redhat, not fsf,
I know, it was just an example.
> (2) It's available both under GPL and LGPL.
Bad example, apparently. There are plenty of others, I would assume.
Just popped into my head on the way out the door..
I guess I have learned my lesson about doing that:-(
My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the
components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of
programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action?
Ciao,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: