Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-06-01 Thread Sam Hartman
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for * use in the design, construction,

Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-05-28 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Many thanks to everybody for your responses. As I understand, I'll have to remove this code from argouml or move argouml to non-free... or ask Sun to change their license ;-) Am I right? Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:

Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-05-27 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Hello everybody, I am the new maintainer of argouml and I saw the attached message on the dev-mailing-list. They added new sources but with a Sun's License. I think it would be ok to include in Debian but I prefer to ask here (I think it's the best place, isn't it? ;-)). Many thanks for your

Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-05-27 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for * use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear * facility. This seems to fail

Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-05-27 Thread Joel Baker
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:37:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for * use in the design, construction,

Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-05-27 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or, in other words, it may well fail DFSG #6, because the upstream is very likely to be completely unwilling to open themselves up to the lawsuits that could result from a critical failure of their software when used in a safety-critical system where a

Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)

2003-05-27 Thread Joel Baker
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or, in other words, it may well fail DFSG #6, because the upstream is very likely to be completely unwilling to open themselves up to the lawsuits that could result from a critical