[[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
Hi,
I've filed an ITP (WNPP #252999) on some software that is licensed under the
GPL.
The source does not contain anything like a COPYING or LICENSE file or
anything where the author asserts copyright over the work, or states that
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:31:44PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
Choice of venue aside, I question whether if you sue me and lose, you pay
me
my costs is free. That might be a good policy for laws (or perhaps not;
I'm
not very informed of the legal theory behind that), but I'm not sure if
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 06:50:14PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Mozilla Relicensing FAQ
2. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html#not-yet-relicensed
This essentially says that we're trying to get everyone's permission;
we're close and expect to be there soon. As long as we believe this
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:40:20PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
[[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
Please set the Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this.
I've emailed the author and asked if he could add such assertions to a
subsequent release of the software, but
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:02:08AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:40:20PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
[[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
Please set the Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this.
Must learn how to do that in Mutt...
Ah, E
[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B!!(B
$B(B
$B$3$l$+$i$N![EMAIL
PROTECTED]|1_0JeCy6b!! test.
Nobody on a desert island can be requested to do anything.
Sure you can; send a message in a bottle (or via one-way satellite). Lots
of
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
How does the ASF interpret the clause?
I don't know, but if you think this clause is ambiguous enough that
clarification from Apache is worthwhile, remember that
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:14:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:23:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
to give any third party, this fails the Desert Island (or some
variant of it) test.
Nobody on a desert island can be requested to do anything.
Sure you
The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
#
# Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright notices)
#
# This work is made available to you under the terms of Version
Hi all -
The consensus from debian-legal archives and current discussion seems to be the
MPL is non-free. Below is a summary of reasons, compiled from commentary on the
MPL and the similar Nokia license reviewed last August.
By the way, the following software is apparently licensed under the
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
#
# Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
2. It requires distributors to retroactively notify recipients about
third-party
legal problems with the software (Dissident test).
Lousy description. Both this, and the dissident test failure, are
problems, but they aren't the same
O Xoves, 10 de Xuño de 2004 ás 16:51:06 -0400, Michael Poole escribía:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions? Does the fact that
the restrictions are non-enforceable (at least in the US) enter
consideration?
I
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
What is the impact of the third
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
What is
Jim Marhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't really want to defend the MPL, but ...
| 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
| [...]
| (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is
| granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2)
|
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
from the ordinary default situation? If I were a citizen of, or an
entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
America would I normally be able to safely ignore cases
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
This is a GPL-incompatible
Evan Prodromou [Wed Jun 09, 2004 at 02:46:23PM -0400]:
I can try to bring the subject up on the cc-licenses list again.
I am involved with the adaptation of the CC licences in Australia, and
have raised the issues with the drafting team.
I have also pointed out the problems to our project
24 matches
Mail list logo
