Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*system\s+call\s+documentation\s+\[license\s+question\]\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:40:39 +0100 (CET)
The man pages are intended to be GPL licensed, while libacl (and libattr) was originally intended to be under LGPL. I have been quite lazy on putting that right into the package. I assume that nobody
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00011.html (9,420 bytes)

2. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:50:17 +0100
[l-k dropped from cc because there are already too many off-topic threads IMHO GPL or LGPL doesn't make much sense for documentation. For example if someone printed them out and sold them as book wou
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00012.html (9,159 bytes)

3. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:55:27 +0000
At least the Debian folks considere this license non-free (and I fully agree with tham, not that it matters..), so there's a singnificant part of the Linux userbase that won't easily get them. I'd be
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00013.html (9,100 bytes)

4. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:03:24 +0000
(Small addition before I get flamed heavily) The FSF-advocacy of the FDL is optional, but even this part beeing written down in the FDL makes it hard to find out whether something FDL-licensed actual
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00014.html (9,345 bytes)

5. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:16:39 -0800
what about "do what you want; but don't blame, sue or call me if stuff breaks" ? does retention of a name really matter than much to ones ego? --cw
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00015.html (8,870 bytes)

6. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:40:39 +0100 (CET)
The man pages are intended to be GPL licensed, while libacl (and libattr) was originally intended to be under LGPL. I have been quite lazy on putting that right into the package. I assume that nobody
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00495.html (9,420 bytes)

7. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:50:17 +0100
[l-k dropped from cc because there are already too many off-topic threads IMHO GPL or LGPL doesn't make much sense for documentation. For example if someone printed them out and sold them as book wou
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00496.html (9,159 bytes)

8. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:55:27 +0000
At least the Debian folks considere this license non-free (and I fully agree with tham, not that it matters..), so there's a singnificant part of the Linux userbase that won't easily get them. I'd be
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00497.html (9,100 bytes)

9. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:03:24 +0000
(Small addition before I get flamed heavily) The FSF-advocacy of the FDL is optional, but even this part beeing written down in the FDL makes it hard to find out whether something FDL-licensed actual
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00498.html (9,345 bytes)

10. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:16:39 -0800
what about "do what you want; but don't blame, sue or call me if stuff breaks" ? does retention of a name really matter than much to ones ego? --cw
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00499.html (8,870 bytes)

11. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:40:39 +0100 (CET)
The man pages are intended to be GPL licensed, while libacl (and libattr) was originally intended to be under LGPL. I have been quite lazy on putting that right into the package. I assume that nobody
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00979.html (9,451 bytes)

12. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:50:17 +0100
[l-k dropped from cc because there are already too many off-topic threads there] IMHO GPL or LGPL doesn't make much sense for documentation. For example if someone printed them out and sold them as b
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00980.html (9,299 bytes)

13. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:55:27 +0000
At least the Debian folks considere this license non-free (and I fully agree with tham, not that it matters..), so there's a singnificant part of the Linux userbase that won't easily get them. I'd be
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00981.html (9,291 bytes)

14. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:03:24 +0000
(Small addition before I get flamed heavily) The FSF-advocacy of the FDL is optional, but even this part beeing written down in the FDL makes it hard to find out whether something FDL-licensed actual
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00982.html (9,548 bytes)

15. Re: system call documentation [license question] (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:16:39 -0800
what about "do what you want; but don't blame, sue or call me if stuff breaks" ? does retention of a name really matter than much to ones ego? --cw
/archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00983.html (9,008 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu