On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:38:33PM -0400, Steven Augart wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
[...]
This issue was discussed
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
You are not the only one. Jaldhar H. Vyas tried before.
: You must ensure that all recipients of
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
[...]
This issue was discussed earlier. And the consensus seems to be (at
least my opinion was)
Branden Robinson said on Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:44PM -0500,:
Anybody have a URL to the list archives?
It starts here:-
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00286.html
The conclusion seems to be here:-
posted mailed
Joshua Tacoma wrote:
(not only am INAL, I also have no experience developing debian packages,
and this may grow into my first one)
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/?lang=e
It's available under two licenses: one (free) for Open
(not only am INAL, I also have no experience developing debian packages,
and this may grow into my first one)
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/?lang=e
It's available under two licenses: one (free) for Open Source use, the
other ($) for commercial
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
You are not the only one. Jaldhar H. Vyas tried before.
: You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms
of these items are also able to receive and use
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 16:32, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Given:
A := BSD to all
B := BSD to few, GPL rest
C := GPL to all
A = free
C = free
So you disagree with the claim that
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(Big long quote because a few days have passed:)
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:05:56AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theory that in
general, your modifications
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:45, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or imagining some kind
of paradox here ...
Given:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 05:19:06AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:45, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
with A and B is non-free. I seem
Op vr 10-10-2003, om 23:10 schreef Henning Makholm:
This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are the
only places where the author's names may legally appear without specific
prior written permission.
Hm - I wonder whether, if this is enforceable at all, it can be
This goal is not free; it violates 1.
THE SWISS EPHEMERIS PUBLIC LICENSE (SEPL)
version 0.2
Copyright (C) 1998 Astrodienst AG, Switzerland.
Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
However, clause 3(b) worries me a bit:
b. If modifications to the SE are released under this
license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the
copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your
modification in
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
b. If modifications to the SE are released under this
license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the
copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your
modification in future versions of the SE provided such
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:05:56AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theory that in
general, your modifications have pecuniary value, and you are
compelled to license your valuable modifications to the
charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
and suggested I seek clarification here.
This is the license:
Included below is draft version 0.2 of the license that we are currently
using for the Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition. The license
is called the Swiss Ephemeris Public License (or SEPL
Scripsit Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nobody commented then and it looked ok to me however
James rejected it with the following comment:
I'm a little concerned about the license on this software, in
particular, this phrase:
without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if
- you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a
reasonable copy charge
- or/and you develop and distribute software which is not published under an
Open
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Clause 6 is non-free according to the DFSG because of the phrase you
cite; it prohibits distribution for profit.
I read that clause slightly differently... the 'without any charge
beyond the costs of data transfer' seems only to apply to the source
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Clause 6 is non-free according to the DFSG because of the phrase you
cite; it prohibits distribution for profit.
I read that clause slightly differently... the 'without any charge
beyond the costs of data
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if
- you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a
reasonable copy charge
- or/and you develop and distribute
Summary: The licence appears DFSG-free, although it could be more tightly
written to make that a bit clearer. The preamble, however, is either really
badly worded, or shows that the authors interpret the licence to be
non-free.
If we go just based on the licence text, then I think you're OK.
23 matches
Mail list logo
