-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| There is no need to reference a license in a source file for it to be valid.
| Source code is copyrighted with or without referencing a license in the files
| itself. Apart from that, the old license is part of the
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
---
APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE
Version 2.0 - August 6, 2003
Please read this License carefully before downloading this software.
By downloading or using this
Hi!
[Please Cc: me on replies, I'm not subscribed to this list -- OTOH I'll
watch the archive for answers anyway]
I wonder why the games Beneath a Steel Sky and Flight of the Amazon
Queen are in main. To me the license is quite clearly non-free, because
its for non-commercial use only:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:32:01AM -0500, Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
No.
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will
terminate:
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during
the
On 2004-06-25 10:32:01 +0100 Ryan Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
This question doesn't really make sense as phrased, IMO.
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
free in the document entitled The
Hi,
Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11:
3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
reselling the game as an individual item.
Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG?
AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowed to distribute it as part of
something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| Huh? The docs and the web page do *clearly* state that this is not the case.
| The web page for example says:
|
| Until today, I have rewritten large parts of the compiler, all of the
| library, completely replaced
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:16:27AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
| What exactly is unclear about this information?
That it's not in the source files themselves.
I've stated that twice: No conclusion at all can be drawn from the fact that a
source file doesn't contain or reference a license.
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:16:27AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
| What exactly is unclear about this information?
That it's not in the source files themselves.
I've stated that twice: No conclusion at all can be drawn from the fact that a
source file doesn't
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
That isn't meaningful: No one argues whether the source is
copyrighted. The question is what license applies.
But it's not me asking this question, it's you. I have always stated that the
old license is still in effect for parts
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:13:10PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
At least the splash screen of Flight of the Amazon Queen when you
start it is misleading at large, too:
Unauthorized copying, reproduction, adoption, rental, public
performance, broadcast or other exploitation of
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
The usual presumption is that someone who distributes the code does so
(a) as the original author, (b) in accordance with some license, or
(c) because the code is in the public domain. If you distribute code,
it is your responsibility that licenses on it are
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:59:14AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
There is an important difference between distributing and
redistributing: Only the author can be the original distributor, so he
may give the code to anyone he wishes. All redistributors have to
have license from the original
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
You are really making me upset. As you can see from Benjamin Cutlers attempts
to find old code in the current sources, I could have easily claimed that all
code was written by me - no one would have noticed. I haven't done that. In
fact, I have marked new and
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:45:26AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those four files you say have JRD's code in them, though, what is in
their headers?
You are really trying, aren't you?
There is my name in three of the files. This is because I created the files at
the given date by copying
The time to get your dream job and make what you
deserve is now!
UPGRADE YOUR LIFE :.. Speed Up Your Career
One of the quickest ways to speed up your next career
move is to obtain a university degree.
Contact us at 1 - 315 - 5 46 - 9 663 and you can literally earn
your degree in weeks, not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jens persson wrote:
Hello,
What I found strange and RC, (but haven't acted upon yet) is that I
could not find any source. the upstream package just contains binary
file (queen.1c for Flight of the Amazon Queen) that is copied into the
package. I
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
After downloading the sources, you claim that the all compiler sources refer
to the new license. I prove this wrong. Now you're keeping up with some more
claims, that just show that you didn't look at the original JRD sources. I'm
maintaining my original
Dear subset of debian-legal contributors,
Please try to be a bit more constructive when working with upstream
developers. The debian developer reference and manuals generally
encourage *co-ordination* with upstream. Nothing that gets this
response:
On 2004-06-25 16:07:40 +0100 Ullrich von
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, while acceptance alone does not obligate anything of you, some
obligations do kick in if you try to use some of the rights you have
been granted. For example, if you take the option to distribute
binaries of modifications and then post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
|
| Correction: You don't want to understand that. It can be easily seen from the
| fact that you accused me of intentional muddling with licenses before even
| looking at the source code, that it is not your intention to
Ryan wrote:
[snip]
1.4 Externally Deploy means: (a) to sublicense, distribute or
otherwise make Covered Code available, directly or indirectly, to
anyone other than You; and/or (b) to use Covered Code, alone or as
part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service, including but
not
On 2004-06-25 17:00:42 +0100 Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] what we are usually talking about on debian-legal
are the agreements, not the licenses granted in those agreements.
Maybe this is indicative of a general topic drift in this list?
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free
24 matches
Mail list logo
