Re: Ten years later

From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:24:33 GMT

Guga wrote:

....

RosAsm license is GPL compatible,

Stallman has specifically stated that the "RosAsm License Agreement" is *not* compatible with GPL (according to Betov). As a non-lawyer, even *I* can see that the RosAsm License Agreement imposes additional restrictions, and that the GPL specifically prohibits additional restrictions.

Would you make the above statement under oath?

Best,
Frank
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ten years later
  - From: //\\\\o//\\\\annabee

References:
- Ten years later
  - From: Betov
- Re: Ten years later
  - From: sevag.krikorian@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Ten years later
  - From: Guga

Prev by Date: Re: newbie: segments in a .com file
Next by Date: FASMLIB 0.5.0 is out
Previous by thread: Re: Ten years later
Next by thread: Re: Ten years later
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Ten years later
... As a non-lawyer, even *I* can see that the RosAsm License Agreement imposes additional restrictions, and that the GPL specifically prohibits additional restrictions. ... Second, such an extra licence will certainly have absolutly no possible _real_ effect, because in order to have a second licence, you need to be prepared to enforce it. ... Lawers writings are 100% perverse. ...
(alt.lang.asm)
Re: SCAS benchmarks
... Betov wrote: ... > The very first condition for having such a Project ... If anybody's being "banned", it ain't GPL! ... Your RosAsm License Agreement ...
(alt.lang.asm)