Re: Licensing, was elvis package
David Welton <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> David Welton <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or
with the ability to link out of the box against Motif?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org