Michael Poole wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
However I didn't see a signature in the text file.
Only the guy's name.
At least in the US, the relevant law (why I mentioned affirmative
acts) is what make click-through agreements binding -- the act of
clicking is the user's electronic
Juan M. Mendez wrote:
Being completely reworks for the game, could it be safe to relicense
version 4, no matter what Adam did with version 5?
If version 4 and version 5 have competely different codebases
and were written by different people, then the author of
version 4 can do whatever he
On 10/9/06, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Wala wrote:
Is clause 3 of the BSD license (The name of the author...) GPL-compatible?
Yes, because GPL article 1 has a corresponding requirement.
So there is no conflict in licensing terms, and therefore
you can release the whole
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's
too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list
of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that
appear to contain IETF RFC or I-D's at:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:46 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:
So, are you asserting that if the CCPL3.0 included an allowance to
distribute TPM'd files, so long as the key necessary to apply TPM
to modified works based on the non-TPM'd version were publically
available (or
Markus Laire wrote:
On 10/9/06, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Wala wrote:
Is clause 3 of the BSD license (The name of the author...)
GPL-compatible?
Yes, because GPL article 1 has a corresponding requirement.
I don't see any such requirement in GPLv2[1] article 1:
I
Simon Josefsson wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how
those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a
DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps
some sample
MJ Ray wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The case has been made that CCPL3.0 is DFSG-non-free because it
does not allow the distribution of content in TPM'd format[0]. I
assert that not only is this argument false, it is actually
reversed: allowing TPM distribution, even with
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
Prohibiting TPM *distribution* is fine under DFSG.
No, it's not. Prohibiting TPM distribution is quite clearly a
restriction on a field of endeavor.
This is exactly what the Aug 9 draft of CCPL3.0 says:
You may not impose any technological measures
9 matches
Mail list logo
