Marco d'Itri wrote:
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines.
We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these guidelines.
I do not see other criteria
Josselin Mouette wrote:
I don't know about the US - and if this is enough to make a license
non-free, this will give another reason to resurrect the non-us archive
- but in other countries, the author could only sue the user in the
latter's juridiction (if the juridiction word ever makes
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, the typical argument is that giving up your right to have
cases tried in your local venue is a fee or royalty, and as such
violates DFSG ?1.
Just to underline this some more in case it's still not clear why this
is a fee, or even why if not
http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt attached.
Please verify DFSG-freeness and add to
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
Thank you.
Shriramana Sharma.
Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization
obtaining
Shriramana Sharma writes:
http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt attached.
Please verify DFSG-freeness and add to
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
Thank you.
Shriramana Sharma.
Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
I thought of using the Boost license:
http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
but it is not listed at:
Don Armstrong wrote:
To underline, the following clauses in the CDDL are problematic:
9. MISCELLANEOUS
[...]
This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction
specified in a notice contained within the Original Software
(except to the extent applicable law, if any,
Francesco Poli wrote:
We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to
the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies...
What sort of modifications?
...Actually, a concept from copyright law may help here. There are
*two* copyrights on any given recording.
Nathanael Nerode writes:
with
the losing party responsible for costs, including, without
limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.
Haven't heard much if any comment on this.
Fee shifting distorts the default legal environment in the United
States. European
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
Debian does not agree with the FSF opinion on this. The FSF's
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Hello.
I have heard that in copyright declarations like:
---
Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved.
---
it is incorrect to use (C) in place of the symbol © which is the strict
copyright symbol. Is this so?
This is not legal
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
[the (C) sequence is] possibly not a valid copyright
indicator. The © symbol is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
with
the losing party responsible for costs, including, without
limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.
Haven't heard much if any comment on this.
Dunno what UK law actually is on this,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
If this is the same company which is licensing its software under a dual
GPL-and-proprietary model, I think it probably makes the most sense for
your company to simply license the manual under the GPL. This means
that your
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that
are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
If you re-read that section, it mostly addresses the FSF's
15 matches
Mail list logo
