John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
5. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
to obtain complete source code for the OpenPBS software and any
modifications and/or additions to the OpenPBS software. The source code
must either be included in the distribution or be
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
5. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
to obtain complete source code for the OpenPBS software and any
modifications and/or additions to the OpenPBS software. The source code
must
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
GPL-ish stuff, the only problem is that you theoretically cannot use the
OpenPBS license on contributed code, since it implies restrictions (there
goes DFSG 3). In fact, the only way you could theoretically contribute
code is to make the contributions PD,
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the XFree86 license, it's tough to find a restriction, but they have
one:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
this necessarily restricts the
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
You are patently attempting to misread the license. But it can't hurt
to just ask the authors.
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the XFree86 license, it's tough to find a restriction, but they have
one:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I am trying to misread the license. Worse yet, I'm succeeding.
Hrm. Maybe you're actually Yogi Berra redivivus.
Clause 5 is capable of being construed in a manner that denies the right
of modification.
The point is not whether it is capable of
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
You are patently attempting to misread the
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
DFSG doesn't require that we be able to combine material under
different
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
GPL-ish stuff, the only problem is that you theoretically cannot use the
OpenPBS license on contributed code, since it implies restrictions (there
goes DFSG 3). In fact, the only way you could theoretically
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I am trying to misread the license. Worse yet, I'm succeeding.
Hrm. Maybe you're actually Yogi Berra redivivus.
Clause 5 is capable of being construed in a manner that denies the right
of modification.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Secondly, code can always be moved from non-free to main based on new
licensure. Debian CANNOT survive a copyright infringement suit because of
improper due diligence on the part of d-l.
Huh? Assuming that the new license is granted by the true copyright
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
DFSG doesn't require that we be
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:16:08PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, it requires releasability under the SAME license. Clause 5
requires modifications to be released with NO restrictions at all,
and all licenses necessarily restrict rights, including the OpenPBS
license. Therefore modifications
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it requires releasability under the SAME license. Clause 5 requires
modifications to be released with NO restrictions at all, and all licenses
necessarily restrict rights, including the OpenPBS license. Therefore
modifications cannot be released under
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that the OpenPBS license requires modifications to be public
domain.
This says a little too much. It doesn't actually require public
domain status, but it requires something very very close. However,
one can license all the rights that the public
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possibly, but I'm not convinced that I have yet.
Is there a reason anyone associated with Debian should bother trying
to convince you?
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:16:08PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, it requires releasability under the SAME license. Clause 5
requires modifications to be released with NO restrictions at all,
and all licenses necessarily restrict rights, including the
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This solves one of my problems. The second is more thorny.
It seems that the PBS license has the choice of law clause for Virginia, a
UCTIA state. In the past, this was enough to make a license questionable.
Is it enough reason to make it non-free on it's
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:28:04PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
It seems that the PBS license has the choice of law clause for
Virginia, a UCTIA state. In the past, this was enough to make a
license questionable. Is it enough reason to make it non-free on it's
own? Remember, the choice of law thing
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possibly, but I'm not convinced that I have yet.
Is there a reason anyone associated with Debian should bother trying
to convince you?
Only the obvious ones. But, no, there's really no reason for anyone
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think here we should show that there's some specific problem with
UCTIA and the OpenPBS license -- I don't think it's fair to reject the
software because there might be a problem, but we're too ignorant to
know whether one actually exists.
On Tue,
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This solves one of my problems. The second is more thorny.
It seems that the PBS license has the choice of law clause for Virginia, a
UCTIA state. In the past, this was enough to make a license questionable.
Is
23 matches
Mail list logo
