Don Armstrong wrote:
As a parting note, it is troubling that they call a license version
1.0, and then have a revision date associated with it. The RPSL should
really be refered to as RPSL version 1.0 as of 10/28/2002 or some
such. [Or they should incrememnt the version numbers when they
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attribution
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
Derivative Work:
| Derivative Work means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
| and other pre-existing works, such as a
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
There are two ways this might be read. must make
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are two ways this might be read. must make modifications available
to the upstream is agreed as a non-starter. must make source available
to users in addition to distribution recipients seems a lot more
reasonable to me.
Actually, the language
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 08:48, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attribution
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
Derivative Work:
| Derivative Work means a work based upon the Work or
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 17:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
those
I'm not sure that revocability of free software licences really is a
problem. However, if it is, this might help:
Free software authors and contributors could sell distribution rights
for their work with a contract something like the following.
| Contract made between name of free software
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, +00:38:27 EET (UTC +0200),
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] pressed some keys:
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about
Richard Stallman wrote:
The Creative Commons licenses are not supposed to be used for software.
Doesn't the Creative Commons site say so? It ought to.
http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3321 makes it clear the Creative
Commons does not intend to get involved with software licensing.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:38:26PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
10 matches
Mail list logo
