Hi,
After bumping into some license incompatibilities (between GPL and
OpenSSL) a few years ago, I've been using the BSD license.
A recent discussion made me consider the following scheme:
GPL license version 3 or higher with the following exemption:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0
licenses.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
Just saying that they are in spirit the same as GPL is *not* a
Francesco Poli wrote:
What is not clear to me is: if Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes
are absurd things such as sort-of-taxes on virgin media (recordable CDs,
DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
the right to collect royalties for any exercise by You
Thanks for all the feedback!
The majority of the discussion seems to have shifted to CC-BY-SA 3.0,
even though my initial question was about GPL v3. Let me first summarize
the comments on the creative commons discussion.
Kudos to Olive for making the most useful distinction in this
discussion:
!) and tell me how this
is different from the creative commons anti-TPM clause.
What is the correct conclusion:
1. This is the same. Both licenses are non-free
2. This is the same. Both licenses are free
3. This is clearly totally different. The difference is
Confusingly yours,
Freek
On 22-8-2004 14:58, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 02:51:39PM +0200, Igor Stroh wrote:
could someone check this licence[1]? I believe it's somewhat BSD-like,
but I'm not quite sure. It's the licence of python-gtk2-tutorial. Since
there's no description of
On 18-8-2004 08:22, Luis R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please arrange for your project to officially change the license. The
project leader can do it by fiat (it is a simple thing, after all) or
you can do it through your resolution process. Tell us when you are done.
Anyone know
On 13-8-2004 06:33, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What annoys me propably most is that this simple licence is non-GPL
compatible, and any software written with this licence is not allowed to be
linked against GPL-software:
This code may be freely modified, copied and distributed,
A bit off-topic reply.
On 13-8-2004 13:18, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded to my mail:
Likely, this is a moral aberration I got by being employed as
scientist.
Maybe, but there is recently an increasing consideration of
scientific ethics and science and society topics as we are faced
Given the fact that this topic seems to come up relatively often, would it
be a good idea to put a few things into a FAQ for people to refer to?
I am willing to put down a draft of questions. I have proposed this as a
side note in a private mail, and was pointed that this not a Debian-specific
to
this particular non-GPL code.
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
of free as
mentioned in the Debian Social Contract. Oh well, I'll survive.
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
(being very disappointed in the GPL now)
it 'allowed free software'. I now realise that things are
not as black and white. I may come over it. :-)
But I will probably use LGPL (or the MIT licence you mentioned) for my
projects in the future.
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
(who never thought that a good argument about laws and licence could
FSF to sue you to create legal precedent? :-)
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
[rant mode on]
PS: to play the devils advocate on this list: is this [EMAIL PROTECTED]$(%$
really
necessary for me as an end-user to get open-source software to work? I'd
rather had spend all this time doing something
is indeed open source.
I take it that it is not possible to put a source-only (no-binary)
distribution) in the main section of Debian?
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
[Who is trying very hard to refrain myself from make *very* saracastic
remarks about lawyers who make incompatible open source licences
is incorrect, given the statement in the GPL-FAQ, please
let me know immediately!
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself
[...] then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
gnutls.
Fine. If you choose not to help others, that's your choice. I don't
like it.
I could have just compiled
is incorrect, given the statement in the GPL-FAQ, please
let me know immediately!
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
--
Never ask a man what kind of computer he owns. If it's a Mac, he'll tell
you. If not, why embarrass him?
and libcrypto.a from
/usr/lib before compiling netatalk.
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
On 09-08-2004 18:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is sad that despite all copyright holders are more then willing to
co-operate, there still is something holding them back.
Yes -- the rest of the copyright holders. Bug the Samba/libiconv
folks if you like, but I suggest
On 9-8-2004 18:58, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is
not allowed. However, just thinking
21 matches
Mail list logo
