Hi legal gurus,
I'd like to know what others think about the SNNS licence [1], wrt the
DFSG.
1. Main clause says: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
[please cc me on responses]
hey wise people,
i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
kernel here and there, and because he added userland
Yann Dirson wrote:
1. Main clause says: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:15, martin f krafft wrote:
[please cc me on responses]
hey wise people,
i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel
source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all
his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches
for the kernel, right?
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yann Dirson wrote:
1. Main clause says: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 04:20:12PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Perhaps you could get this clarified as well?
Will try. Thanks to both for the hints.
Overall, this license reads like a GPL wannabee, with all of the
requisite vagueness and over-reach. Any possibility of having them
change
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
A patch to a
8 matches
Mail list logo
