olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 04 Aug 2010 20:59:50 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:08:45AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > No need to care about license stuff: fold that into a separate
> > process, and voilà :)
>
> It's not that simple. What constitutes a derived work cannot
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 20:59:50 olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:08:45AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > No
need to care about license stuff: fold that into a separate
> > process, and
voilà :)
>
> It's not that simple. What constitutes a derived work can
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:08:45AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> No need to care about license stuff: fold that into a separate
> process, and voilà :)
It's not that simple. What constitutes a derived work cannot be decided
based on process boundaries alone. After all, processes (i.e. adre
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:51:50AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> This mail is based on the recent bug-hurd thread of missing features
> of Hurd: USB, SATA, sound, wireless, modern processors, etc. This
> question comes up every time somebody mention the usability of Hurd
> (except the inhere
Svante Signell, le Tue 20 Jul 2010 10:51:50 +0200, a écrit :
> same as GNU/Linux even if it is a GNU project. This means that Linux
> code could in theory be used if the copyright holders of the Linux code
> agrees to transfer copyrights to GNU for the relevant parts.
No need to care about license
Hi,
Svante Signell writes:
> According to my findings Hurd is licensed as GPL v2 only
No, it’s GPLv2+, as can be seen from the source file headers.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
