Brian M Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
software license like the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the
differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it
applies to?
Absolutely.
In the X11 license:
Permission is hereby granted provided that... and that... appear in
supporting
In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(
Ahh, the horror continues.
I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.
Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to
use his code under any license as long
On 10-8-2004 00:49, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose to built netatalk (with GPL licence) against OpenSSL (a non-GPL
licence) and distribute the whole with the GPL licence. How does that
violate the GPL?
You can't distribute the whole under the GPL. You must adhere to the
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
2. Don't break threads.
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Pay more attention. :-)
The warranty disclaimer is not a condition of the license; it's not a
condition of any sort, simply an assertion that there is no warranty.
Now if
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the clause QPL
6c problem.
The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, but consensus about it
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:56:08AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
OK. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it, and in fact
would argue that this
parse error
Since your opinion forms the majority, that is the end of that.
Well, the correct answers to legal issues are not,
On 10-08-2004 11:24, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, this is my opinion:
If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but
no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is
present. However, it can just as well work
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the
license for The Compiler is described as the QPL version 1.0, while
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:43:06AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the
ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian M Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
Sven Luther said:
No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
is
why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so
it
is less problematic.
Ok, one apt-get install wdiff
On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal
flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge
release
than nit picking here.
Well, don't post flamebait to debian-legal that seems to
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:41:51AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther said:
No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
is
why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal
flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge
release
than nit picking here.
You are right. this will render nmap undistributable by Debian.
--
br,M
On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being
posted to
debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA.
Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times
Hello all,
I am emailing the list to ask your advice regarding a collection of licences
which the doom engine and related engines have been licenced under. This is in
relation to bug #264816 , `doomlegacy-sdl: combines incompatible, non-dfsg
licences'.
The doom computer game consists of two
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being
posted to
debian-legal, if you can do that.
On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it, derivative work is a specific legal term,
defined
by law, not individual licenses.
I've been told it's not in English law, which is why licences which
choose English law should either define it or find
* Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040809 13:42]:
2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make
the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
Not if he want to still use code for which he only has GPL as licence
allowing him to incorporate it.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
This is the same thing; they link
@ 10/08/2004 15:05 : wrote Mahesh T. Pai :
Humberto Massa said on Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:21:56AM -0300,:
You are right. this will render nmap undistributable by Debian.
Who's right? and why?
web interface in lists.debian.org did not play nice with my work mail
server, proxy and my
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following
conditions (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
anything of the sort.
Are we perhaps talking about
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
All right.
2. Don't break threads.
This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Pay more attention. :-)
The warranty disclaimer is not a condition
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it, derivative work is a specific legal term,
defined
by law, not individual licenses.
I've been told it's not in English law, which is why licences
On 2004-08-10 21:05:32 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There's a parallel, synonymous term in UK law. Any reasonable court
should accept it as a synonym.
Relying on a reasonable court unless it's really certain might be seen
as a lawyerbomb. What is the synonymous term? Given
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:14, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following
conditions (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
Josh Triplett wrote:
Another vendor using the Debian domain. I'm not sure if there is
anything we can do about it but though at least you'd like to know
someone has done this in Japan.
Hmm, should we try to claim not to use debian domain?
I'm not familiar about domain name dispute
All,
I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
apologies for the delay in closing this out.
I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
on a GPL-compatible commons deed. While I believe that such a deed
would be in the interest of the community
licenses in that file, the phrase subject to the
following conditions: is found in the SPI license, the XFree86 license,
and the X Consortium license. It is not in the license that started this
^^^
That word shouldn't be
Hi,
I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if
Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12:
They later released it under the GPL licence[2].
is true, then
1) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are both incompatible
with the GPL and thus attempts
FYI..
--
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---BeginMessage---
Greetings All,
Version 0.2 of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception has been released.
The MySQL FLOSS License Exception is an extension to the terms and
conditions of the GNU General Public License (GPL) that increases the
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:36:10 +0200, Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if
Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12:
They later released it under the GPL licence[2].
is true, then
1) [snip]
is not true, since if
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
apologies for the delay in closing this out.
Not at all, thank you for pursuing this.
I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
on a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
clause QPL 6c problem.
Great!
The
36 matches
Mail list logo
