Glenn Maynard asked:
Is it valid to combine GPL work placed under GPL version 2 with one
under GPL version 2 or any later version? That is, do versioning
choices impact compatibility (when the versions overlap)? Are all future
modifications bound to give the same permission to upgrade the GPL?
Sven Luther asked:
BTW, what about an upload of miboot to non-free ? What would be needed for
that ? A simple permission from apple ?
Permission for Debian and its mirror network to distribute the boot sector.
That's all that would be needed for non-free.
--
Regarding clearn-room
Glenn Maynard wrote:
You're
replying to my forwarding of the official answer, repeating the answer
as if it wasn't there. I can't imagine why, though I'm a little wary
at the moment for a Nerode-flood of thirty such useless replies at once
...
Reading list mail *way* behind, sorry. I was
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
*which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
I'm not sure which project Bruce refers to when he talks about the project
leader here. I assume the Debian project. Apparently. SPI will change the
licence if the Debian project tells them to.
Debian-legal: should Martin Michlmayr, the DPL, be asked to change the
shermans-aquarium:
The fish images are taken from a freeware windows screen saver by
Jim Toomey.(www.slagoon.com)...
...So the fish images are copyrighted by Jim Toomey, and released
in his screensaver as freeware. But he didn't give me permission to use
his graphics, but neither did he tell me
Kaquarium appears to contain graphics from shermans-aquarium,
but without the copyright notices
Plus upstream doesn't have any statement saying that it's under the GPL.
(Neither does kfish, by the same upstream.)
Clearly the ftpmasters don't have time to check whether NEW packages are
BTS wrote:
3. Distribute them to the initial developer under the same license --
that is, without letting him distribute changes to my patches (such
as the application of them to the mainline source) except as
further patches.
Ah, the devil's in the details. See, I was wondering whether
Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
clause QPL
6c problem.
Excellent.
FYI, I think this is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally
agreed on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic
licensing firewall, such that GPL code isn't linked against the
kernel or to other, unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the
differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it
applies to?
Absolutely.
In the X11 license:
Permission is hereby granted provided that... and that... appear in
supporting
In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(
Ahh, the horror continues.
I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.
Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to
use his code under any license as long
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following
conditions (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
anything of the sort.
Are we perhaps talking about
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
All right.
2. Don't break threads.
This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Pay more attention. :-)
The warranty disclaimer is not a condition
Joe Wreschnig wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00200.html:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause. That is, the X
license says Permission is hereby granted... subject to the following
So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
the core of Nathaniel's concerns.
That's Nathan*a*el. :-)
Looks good. I was,
: Edmund Evans, Steve Langasek,
Andrew Suffield, Brian Sniffen, Evan Prodromou, Branden Robinson, Josh
Triplett, Michael Poole, MJ Ray, Nathanael Nerode, Henning Makholm, Raul
Miller, Matthew Palmer, Walter Landry, and myself.
Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
DFSG
While a work may be in the public domain in the U.S., it may be under
copyright elsewhere. So, e.g., while works by the U.S. government may be
public domain in the U.S., they may remain under copyright in other
countries.
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Personally, I think all of our tests should be explicitly tied to some
practical concern so we have some basis for reasoning when unanticipated
situations arise.]
This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right
to criticize the author, sue
Sam Hartman wrote:
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
enforced, and there's no good reason
I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages.
* The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS
instrument aboard the Terra satellite.? Further information is
available
from
* All other planet maps from David Seal's site:
http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/
License for these is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm, and
here it is:
---
Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites
ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address)
Well, I did the rest in one message since the comments were short.
* Mars texture map is from James Hastings-Trew's collection.
Is there any information known about the origin of this? That's really
necessary before you can legally distribute it. If James Hastings-Trew took
the pictures, a
Correction. :-)
* M31, Orion and the Pleiades pictures come from Herm Perez :
http://home.att.net/~hermperez/default.htm
Just found this on the web page:
Feel free to use these images, if you use them in a commercial setting please
attribute the source.
That's the
No, you stated it fine. A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
We have accepted must-change-name clauses (which are worse) in the past based
on the reasoning
,--- Forwarded message (begin)
Subject: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
From: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:08:12 -0400
Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project,gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Colin Watson wrote
Florian Weimer wrote:
The main idea behind some patent clauses is to make the copyright
license conditional on some behavior with respect to patents.
Such as not claiming in a lawsuit that the work infringes a patent? :-)
Well, in that case, there are two possibilities:
(1) The work doesn't
MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect a first step is to split the licences into copyright and
trademark sections if possible.
That's not necessarily necessary if it's a very permissive license and is
written very carefully, but it is probably a good idea.
I assume this needs to be a US law
copyright
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The Dictator Test:
A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
applicable laws.
License grantors do
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
least one Free document in the word processor's format,
Except that in this case, new documents could be created with the word
processor, so it would work
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Package name: musicxml
* URL : http://musicxml.org/dtds/
* License : MusicXML Document Type Definition Public License
Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, 2-clause BSD, MIT/X11.
(We have high hopes that CC-by will be amended to be so but it isn't now.)
How do you guys think about marks, and
Walter Landry wrote:
There is no official mouthpiece of debian-legal. However, I would say
that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
The choice of venue and the send changes back clauses are both
problematic.
We do think it doesn't have *that* many problems. :-)
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! --
and happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to
distribute it
before he's ready!
Raul Miller wrote:
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
Andreas Barth wrote:
That's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
typical civil law construct.
And a disastrous mistake, but never mind that!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* right to not have to share
modifications;
Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications.
What right? :-)
--
There are
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that
are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that
change if you distribute the software privately to one other person?
No, since undistributed modification is protected by fair
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
network
Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time anyway? What practical benefit does this
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with
| Request Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you
| are the copyright holder for those
Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-free
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Send it to a third party and reveal your identity are just as readily
read as non-free from DFSG#1 as pet a cat and distribution only on CD.
If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think
the latter
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello debian-legal.
I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the
QPL is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a
solution
Florian Weimer wrote:
snip
We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do
MJ Ray wrote:
Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html
Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would
like to propose replacing them with:
1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By replying to any messages in this thread, you agree to order me a pizza.
So, what's your address and what's your local pizza place? ;-)
The above is merely a false statement.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say
MJ Ray wrote:
In general, I don't think this ocaml bug should be pursued until
general issues have been settled (or comprehensively fail to reach
anything like consensus in reasonable time) for libcwd, which came
here more recently. Is it proper for any packager of a QPL'd work
currently in
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
anyone else's opinion.
We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
free.
I would assume that if a licensor put such a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient
to render MP3 players
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the Open Use logo; I'm not
going to worry about the other one).
Copyright license:
You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of
this logo.
Good idea to make distribute
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Nathaneal Nerode writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally
*nobody* agreed with,
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is
Florian Weimer wrote:
* MJ Ray:
On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Consider the author's name outside any
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
DFSG-free.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, that's basically my point. There's plenty of grey fuzziness here,
and the QPL falls within it. debian-legal have produced some tests in an
attempt to clarify which bits of the grey fuzziness are free or not, but
they're effectively arbitrary - they haven't been
Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
that such a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
Did you mean 9A(b)? Any requirement for sending source
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it,
since i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml
package. And i wonder if it will come to
Raul Miller wrote:
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Remco Seesink wrote:
Hello,
Licening issues resolved! Thanks all.
Cheers,
Remco.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:39:00 -0400
From: Brent Ashley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Remco Seesink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Licening ibwebadmin and JSRS
Thank
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
test as written would
Branden Robinson wrote:
Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
The Dictator Test:
A
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the right to
Frank Küster wrote:
Hi,
in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don't
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the
trademarks or trade names Apple, Apple Computer, Mac, Mac OS,
QuickTime, QuickTime Streaming Server or any other trademarks,
service marks, logos or trade names
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
licenses:
posted mailed
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
First, let me try to define what I'm calling non-software:
Stop. Call it non-programs. Here, when we say software, we mean it
ain't hardware.
snip
Now, the whole idea of applying the same freeness criteria to what I
call non-software content, looks like
Branden Robinson wrote:
Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
- Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Juergen Weigert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator
Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long
enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think
of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in
some important way.
For example, how is this different
Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[...]
1. The version number will be modified as follows:
a. The first 3 components of the version number
(i.e number.number.number) will remain unchanged.
b. A new component will
Evan Prodromou wrote:
snip
It's probably not a good idea to take every discussion on debian-legal
as an argument. My theory at the time was that the old PC emulators'
dependence on non-free system OS ROMs (like the atari800 package) had
been fossilized into a policy that _all_ emulators
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:40:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is basically a trick of wording. If the license lets you ship it
with the one-character shell script containing the letter 'w' and charge
for that, then that's good enough.
I continue to assert
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't
packaged), the only thing it will do is display an error message that no
ROM was found.
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
snip
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed
one format of images, and there were no images out there in that
format, would you want to see that in Debian? What if there were
images
Lewis Jardine wrote:
snip
Emulators work perfectly correctly without software to emulate. NO$GMB
does the same thing with no image loaded that my gameboy does with no
cartridge in the slot.
It has 'no significant functionality'.
Pacifist (I assume) does the same thing with no
BIOS that a
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
data is
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible
Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are
not DFSG-free.
found on debian-legal
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
snip
Can we generalize and say something like any license which attempts to
restrict beyond the lowest common denominator of copyright laws that
exist today?
Or is the Autocrat Test simply a jurisdictional test?
Neither. What I think it's about is precisely this
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Three people have already replied
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
snip
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
I think this is the crux of the matter. But -just thinking
aloud here- what if the consideration is you promise to
Lex Spoon wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the
author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or
fee; it does not
batist wrote:
snip
It's a bit like the
contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of
the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely
legal in civil law.
Perhaps the correct statement is that free licenses must be gifts? :-)
This corresponds
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL.
Josh Triplett wrote:
I believe the issue is that unlike patents and copyrights, unenforced
trademarks become diluted and no longer enforcable.
Terminology confusion here; dilution is a separate concept from
enforcability. Look up trademark infrignment and trademark dilution.
Indeed, an
Josh Triplett wrote:
Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
Please note that until other debian-legal participants
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
into account a bit. I've a few comments...
Thanks. You had mentioned that it would be better to word summaries in
terms of software covered by the license, rather than the license
MJ Ray wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me.
To almost everyone.
I have
asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow,
incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving
any words from the decision-makers.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
to
defend themselves.
This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It
only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the
choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant
being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in
http
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of
Lex Spoon wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that
you perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
Actually, as far as I can tell
posted mailed
.jareeN. wrote:
Sorry if this is a really silly/of_topic question.
It's not.
I am a LFS user and I want to use free Linux kernel for my GNU/Linux
system, by free I mean which is free from binaries and non-free code.
Does such a kernel exists ?
I mean some kind of patch.
301 - 400 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
