On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:13:04PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> // Copyright (C) 2007, Company X. All rights reserved.
>
> 1) Is the usage of "All rights reserved" appropriate when a file is
> being licensed under the GPL, or in fact under whatever license?
No.
> 2) What is the purpose of
On 6/28/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello. In the license header of a source file being licensed under the
GPL, there must be a copyright notice. Sometimes I see the usage of "All
rights reserved" in that notice:
// Copyright (C) 2007, Company X. All rights reserved.
1) Is
Hi,
On 6/28/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello. In the license header of a source file being licensed under the
GPL, there must be a copyright notice. Sometimes I see the usage of "All
rights reserved" in that notice:
// Copyright (C) 2007, Company X. All rights reserved.
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
The project developers want to distribute a single set of source files
under both the licenses. They don't want to have to maintain two
different directories with two different versions of the same files with
merely the license headers differing.
Please examine the at
Hello. In the license header of a source file being licensed under the
GPL, there must be a copyright notice. Sometimes I see the usage of "All
rights reserved" in that notice:
// Copyright (C) 2007, Company X. All rights reserved.
1) Is the usage of "All rights reserved" appropriate when a fi
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it's really just that installer software like InstallShield
> have a EULA page by default, and the authors/Win32 packagers decide
> to display the GPL in there. It's not so much of an issue for NSIS
> as it's more flexible, but I think it's ju
On 6/29/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem comes when the installer refuses to install the work
without receiving acceptance of the GPL; this goes against what the
license says (i.e. that even a person who says "no" to such a question
has the right to install and use the work.
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realise it probably doesn't make much of a difference if the GPL
> is in a clickthrough, since as I understand it, you don't need to
> agree to the GPL to use the software, and clickthrough agreements
> are probably almost always impossible
On 6/28/07, Bruno Costacurta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, the project team was thinking about something like
an 'advertising-special-exception-whatever-clause'.
Something acceptable is a such direction by sirs FSF, GPL and others ? ;-(
As Josselin pointed out, anything with Qt and OpenSSL
Le jeudi 28 juin 2007 à 10:24 +0200, Bruno Costacurta a écrit :
> > AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS.
> - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and
> Qt
> (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be
> mixed
Le mardi 26 juin 2007 à 00:48 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you
> > don't apply section #6
>
> This is equivalent to saying that software solely released under the Q
I have seen a few Windows apps putting the GPL on a clickthrough
agreement, particularly those that use the Nullsoft installer. The
Debian Windows installer from goodbye-windows.com (or perhaps
goodbye-microsoft.com) comes to mind as such an example.
I realise it probably doesn't make much of a d
Le mercredi 27 juin 2007 à 17:38 +0100, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> I think MJ Ray's contributions to -legal and SPI actively discourage
> other people from contributing
That's true, most of his posts save me a lot of time because I don't
have to bother writing things he already explained much bette
On Thursday 28 June 2007 10:28:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 6/28/07, Bruno Costacurta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > porting to GnuTLS is something we'll avoid.
> >
> > About the issues mentioned before, I can answer and propose :
> >
> > - the actual code implemented a strong separ
Hi,
I would like to package SLEPc eigenvalue solvers[0] into non-free, the
license is below. There is a line "A modified version of the software
cannot be redistributed". The debian package can be built without
modificating the upstream sources though, so my question is, can it go
into non-free?
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Gosh, what fun it is to trade pointless insults on a mailing list.
I feared that was your view. Roll on list-admins.
[...]
> This was, of course, more than you ever did to help define a trademark
> policy, which consisted of complaining that nobod
On 6/28/07, Bruno Costacurta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
porting to GnuTLS is something we'll avoid.
About the issues mentioned before, I can answer and propose :
- the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and
Qt
(review of code can be made by independent par
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 09:51:19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 6/27/07, Bruno Costacurta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your attention and discussion.
> >
> > Can we come to a conclusion ?
> > Shall I simply abandon at this stage any plan to package this application
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
