[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL/LGPL confusion



On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:54:22AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Alice wrote foo.c, licensed under the GNU X11 license.
> I've never seen a GNU X11 license, nor is one listed at
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html.

There's what they claim is the MIT X11 license, which doesn't match the
X11 license on xfree86.org's website. I choose to call that the GNU X11
license to make it clear what I'm talking about.

> >       Bob did last time and misrepresenting her ability to sublicense
> >       works based on foo.c and infringing on Alice's copyright, or
> >       she's not abiding by the terms of the GPL (ie, not licensing the
> >       work as a whole in the proper way), and thus infringing on Bob's
> >       copyright.
> This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.

Of course it doesn't: you cut out the beginning of the sentence: "If not,
she's either doing the same thing as"

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpHR0rph479J.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: