On 11/08/14 12:14, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free,
I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free?
It's really a matter of semantics, but I would argue that since being
able to be
or the and word glues these two licenses together ?
Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use
both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you
should use only the MIT license.
And what about a situation where:
- package A MIT links to SSL
-
Dariusz Dwornikowski writes (Re: A clarification with dual licensing):
And what about a situation where:
- package A MIT links to SSL
- package B GPL links to package A
- package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation
Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a violation
Hi,
I was advised to contact debian legal on this matter.
A libstrophe software [1] claims to have dual license, as read from LICENSE.txt
[2]:
---
libstrophe XMPP client library
Copyright (C) 2005-2009 Collecta, Inc.
This program is dual licensed under the MIT and GPLv3 licenses.
Please the
The question is, in this case, can I choose a license to be MIT
or the and word glues these two licenses together ?
Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use
both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you
should use only the MIT license.
--
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
[...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free,
you should use only the MIT license.
Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 11/08/14 07:26, Francesco Ariis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
[...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free,
you should use only the MIT license.
Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when?
They are normally DFSG free, but when
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free,
I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual licensing.
Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed software
you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Some contend that when
redistributing a project released under, for instance, BSD and LGPL
Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com writes:
I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual
licensing.
There's no canonical definition of the term that I'm aware of.
Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed
software you can choose which license's terms
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
On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:29:27 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco
Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source
code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does
not refer to closeness or
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of
its actual english meaning.
A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it
exempt from subjection to the will
On Tue, 29 May 2007 03:15:37 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of
its actual english meaning.
A piece of free software is not able
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
The first common meanings of the word proprietary seem to refer to
the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright.
They refer to the concept of property which is *exclusively* owned and
controlled, such that a single entity is able to
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software
with source code kept secret?
Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is
Hello people. One question about the header I recently sent for final
approval --
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
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD
or to the DFSG
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco
Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source
code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does
not refer to closeness or secrecy.
Your own words condemn you :-)
This is an accurate
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a
well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom).
And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard.
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a
well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom).
And no,
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:05:54 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
If you use the word proprietary, you are merely echoing the
terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their
marketing slogan Unix is proprietary, Windows is open?
If you use the word proprietary
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shriramana Sharma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying
proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that
the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was
merely echoing the terminology
I have applied corrections based on your comments and herewith enclose
the new draft of the header for the source files. If it is approved by
this list as no faults are found, I will go ahead and use it.
Please if there are any faults that must be corrected, tell me. If I do
not receive any such
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:41:38 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 15/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Thank you. While one of those alternatives is a pay service, paying
for webmail (that uses free software like squirrelmail on top) is not
something I refuse to
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
What's a good webmail to use then?
The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC.
I see no
As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying
proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that the
GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was merely
echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however.
Thanks as always for
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:56:26 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google
On 15/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:56:26 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying
proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that
the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was
merely echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not
On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail.
What's a good webmail to use then?
- Jordi G. H.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail.
What's a good webmail to use then?
The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC.
--
On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail.
What's a good webmail to use then?
The URLs I referenced
Hi,
If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement
clause] and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the files?
Are there examples of something like this in the archive?
Thanks a lot,
Miry
PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :)
On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:58:57 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Hi,
Hi! :)
If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement
clause]
What do you mean by announcement clause?]
Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)?
See[1] for more information about the
2007/5/11, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi! :)
Thanks for your reply :)
What do you mean by announcement clause?]
Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)?
See[1] for more information about the OAC.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Yep, I mean
under a commercial license, which gives
you -- under certain conditions -- the right to use any license you wish for
your work based on Product A. It also fetches you limited support from Company
X. For details on this dual-licensing policy and the full terms of the
commercial license, please visit
On 5/1/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license. They have asked not to
publicise this until the official release which is why I am using
generic terms - i.e. this is a
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of
the note at the end.
I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use
the standard GPL header with your note at the end.
--
Andrew Donnellan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of
the note at the end.
I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use
the standard GPL header with your note at the end.
On 30/04/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license.
I think you've already been nitpicked about this, but I'll do it again
anyways: the GPL *is* a commercial license.
on this dual-licensing policy and the full terms of the
commercial license,
commercial - proprietary; or, better, the full name of the
license, e.g. FooCorp Proprietary License.
please visit: http://www.companyxwebsite.com/licensing/
This is probably best, since if you include the license text
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Say a person X writes a library libfoo. He licenses the library out
under both the GPL and a commercial licence.
I think you mean and a proprietary license.
A person Y uses libfoo under the GPL. He goes and does a lot of
improvements in the library since it is
Say a person X writes a library libfoo. He licenses the library out
under both the GPL and a commercial licence.
A person Y uses libfoo under the GPL. He goes and does a lot of
improvements in the library since it is under the GPL. Now the modified
version of libfoo is copyrighted by both X
On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question is: What would be considered a big enough
difference/modification that X would need Y's permission for backporting
the changes?
Anything that is big enough to legally create a derivative.
1. If Y fixes a bug (of whatever
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library
is dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial
licence.
Please note that the GPL *is* a commercial license. Nothing in it
prevents anyone engaging in commerce -- selling
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share
ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
That's fine
Dual licensing is certainly workable for incompatible
licenses, example MYSQL using GPL and Commercial licenses
in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Don
-license our contributions
under the GPL.
It appears that the only contributors of significant amounts to the manual are
you two (Paolo Bonzini and Ken Pizzini).
So, if you two are both willing to dual-license the manual under the GPL,
please say so! It would be ideal if dual-licensing
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
the GPL, but anyone
Yes. I meant the copyright holder.
Andrew
On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:40:31 -0500 Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
[...]
Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered
software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as
he's the copyright
Scripsit Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered
software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as
he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully
that it, particularly the
requirement
for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute
in
forms other than source code, may have problems when
applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with
by dual-licensing under the GPL
, may have problems when
applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with
by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
your choice.
Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
with both licenses when dual-licensing.
Thats
and the nature of permission to distribute in
forms other than source code, may have problems when
applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with
by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
your choice.
Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem
certain conditions. We're all
probobally very familiar with what the GPL provides, so I'll leave it there.
Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses.
The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by
itself,
will not. It cannot legally
it there.
Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses.
The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by
itself,
will not. It cannot legally restrict beyond what copyright already does.
Nothing in the MIT license, using this as an example
Please don't top-post.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:42:10AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.
I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take
my program,
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take
my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
(Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
but I could do it.)
I
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code
By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do
whatever he pleases. In
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.
Andrew
On 11/5/05, Arc
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:20:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code
By developer, do
There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
(My impression is he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
his name to it?.) Just FYI.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Arc Riley wrote:
What makes you think Arc isn't my real name? It's a gaelic name that died
out
after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by
happy christian names. There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity
On 11/5/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. The preamble explains the FSF's
goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor.
If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick
against the copyright
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code
By developer, do you mean
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still
Here's a response from an FSF volunteer:
-- begin --
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 04 22:35:22 2005]:
Are copyright holders who license software under the GPL compelled to
release source code?
e.g.
Person A writes a program.
Person A says it is under the GPL.
Person A gives a copy of the
if you refrain from top posting.]
I'm very sorry, the top posting was not intentional. I will also try not
to Cc: to people who don't want an extra copy.
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Svante Signell wrote:
I just wanted to know if dual licensing is possible.
It is possible, but when we talk about dual
licensing is possible.
It is possible, but when we talk about dual licensing we typically
mean that two licenses are applied to a work, and the user can (at the
user's option) pick a specific license to use the work under.
OK, so this is the case e.g. with mozilla and openoffice
Hi,
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
Please Cc: me since I'm not subscribed to this list.
Thanks,
Svante
--
To
On May 13, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Svante Signell wrote:
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
I could be wrong, but I see no
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
Hi,
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
Please
Sorry for making inroads to other peoples territories. I just wanted to
know if dual licensing is possible. Obviously is is not possible to
combine GPL and other licences, but why are people talking about it?
I've seen several notes about this on the web: Note that I have not
releasesd any (code
of the GPL is
void.
In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL
made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder
can, of course, cease distributing a work under the terms of the GNU GPL
if that is incompatible with a larger licensing strategy
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:23:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL
made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder
can, of course, cease distributing a work
On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 15:34, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:23:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL
made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder
can, of course, cease distributing
alternative terms cannot restrict the
licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is
void.
In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL
made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder
can, of course, cease distributing a work under
Branden Robinson wrote:
...
The bottom line is that a work is either licensed under the GNU GPL or
it is not. By all accounts, CUPS is licensed under the GNU GPL. It
just so happens that it is also licensed under other terms, presumably
to parties to whom the GNU GPL is unpalatable.
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 14:20, Michael Sweet wrote:
OK, for the purposes of clarification, how does the following
additional sentence sound:
No developer is required to provide these exceptions in a
derived work.
I've put the ammended license agreement up on the CUPS server
for
page, it's just
that some folks are easily confused by dual-licensing and what it
means.
I've put the ammended license agreement up on the CUPS server
for your complete review:
http://www.cups.org/new-license.html
Looks fine to me; in fact that's one of the best license pages I've ever
seen
Branden Robinson wrote:
...
My kudos to you for all of the above. It's refreshing to see a company
that has a solid grasp of free licensing, applies it to their products,
and puts things in plain language on their website instead of leaving
things ambiguous and using weasel words per their
86 matches
Mail list logo
