On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
Being specific: if the program is distributed with MySQL, such that
by default it uses MySQL then we're definitely not talking about mere
aggregation.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Let's say I made a Linux
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
Sounds like this would be in breech of the GPL?
If the application requires GPLed code, then yes.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 12:53:00PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Requires in any sense? The app could use other SQL databases,
but would be bundled
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 09:37:18AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Let's be specific here. If the program can use multiple databases, one
of which is MySQL, then the distribution of that program can include
MySQL so long as MySQL itself is still
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
I am pretty sure that such a clause has always been a part of the Apache
licenses. The intent is pretty simple - we don't want people calling
their commercial derivatives Apache
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, David Starner wrote:
Why are you worried? Trademark law seems fairly simple (for laws), and
open source doesn't seem to make a difference here. It's just We
have this trademark, registered on the 31 of February 2002, they're
using it without permission, and they ignored
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
Hmm. In /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright there is this clause:
5. Products derived from this software may not be called Apache
nor may Apache appear in their names without prior written
permission of the Apache Group.
This seems to be a
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Sam TH wrote:
Debian-legal has repeatedly held that requiring or prohibiting
particular behavior as a condition of distributiing modified versions
is in violation of the Fields of Endeavor clause of the DFSG.
But, that's not what the issue here is. The issue is not one
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
It's not an open source license. Term #6 places limitations on distributing
modified copies.
Erm, so does every copyright license. To be specific, it sounds like
your concern is over adherence to a standard being one of the conditions
for
I think it's highly ironic that the GPL has such grief with the
advertising clause, when it was the advertising clause that tripped up
ATT during their lawsuit with UC Berkeley over Unix ten years ago. ATT
was using BSD code and didn't follow that license, thus (in the
settlement) BSD 4.4-Lite
Erm, is an API-for-API copy of a program taint-free? Given DJB's scant
documentation, can one actually replicate it clean-room, without looking
at the source code?
Though I'd bet DJB would really only get up in arms about it if you called
it freeqmail or something.
Brian
On Mon, 16
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:58:32AM -0700, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
It's my understanding that hurd for example doesn't have this kind of
exception (and I suspect never will, given the project's foundation), so
we'll never even see apache for it
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
committing the action.
This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of
the DFSG which
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard.
Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective
there'd be no debate about whether a given license violated it or not.
Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in a
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
Of course, if the requirements are so pervasive that they can't be
satisfied by personal action on the part of the package maintainer,
we can just drop the package. But I do not see, at the moment, that
these requirements can't be satisfied by the
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
What about the companies building their own distros on top of Debian?
Do they need to obtain permission from UW if they modify the IMAPD
package?
Did you even bother reading
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Lori Stevens wrote:
We confirm that we have given you permission to distribute a modified
version of IMAPD on the condition that you assume all risks when you do
so and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the University of
Washington from any and all claims or
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
Well, the obvious answer is that you can LGPL it, and add the restriction
that the combined work must be licensed under a license that either is
a) OSI-Approved Open Source (as found on www.opensource.org) or
b)
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
Well, the obvious answer is that you can LGPL it, and add the restriction
that the combined work must be licensed under a license that either is
a) OSI-Approved Open Source (as found on www.opensource.org) or
b)
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
Hopefully this clarifies Talin's request a bit.. I won't be able to
answer for at least 10 hours, probably longer. I'm going to BED.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:29:32AM -0700, Talin wrote:
I recieved a few suggestions which, unfortunately, seem to
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to
change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added
restriction if you want sidtribute a derived work that also uses code that
falls under the GPL). So you
On 16 Jun 2000, James Troup wrote:
From the copyright:
| If you wish to integrate it with any other
| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
This makes this software non-free. If you
On 15 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
a violation
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Indeed
a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
a violation of copyright.
b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What has changed that allows us to distribute mutt from the US to people
outside of the US despite the fact that mutt is capable of integrating with
strong encryption software and thereby capable of performing
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
If you think about prime numbers near the Mexican borders the US could try
to say you're exporting crypto. We made the decision that a simple run
this seperate program and pipe output back to me cannot reasonably be
considered encryption hooks.
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
Kernel is GPL. Everything is a derivative of the kernel under your
interpretation. You can argue that Linus has allowed people to abuse the
GPL of the kernel so it's okay, however I think this would cause the GPL
to contaminate any distribution which
27 matches
Mail list logo
