MJ Ray wrote:
Passing off is a little different, so I don't want to confuse that
with trademarks.
That's not something I know much about; a reference on the difference
would be appreciated if you have one.
How is Python being used by the distributor to label the shipped
version of CPython
Hello,
Gnuplot has a non-common license:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnuplot/gnuplot_4.0.0-5/gnuplot.copyright
It says: It is obligatory to add oneself (e.g. Debian) as primary
contact if you distribute modified binaries, but in Gnuplot Debian
package the primary contact
On 21/12/06, Carles Pina i Estany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not possible to distribute new versions of gnuplot (only original
source code and patches), etc.
According to the 4th DFSG:
Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
Carles Pina i Estany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Gnuplot has a non-common license:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnuplot/gnuplot_4.0.0-5/gnuplot.copyright
It says: It is obligatory to add oneself (e.g. Debian) as primary
contact if
I'm curious as to the status of the following code for solving a
Rubik's cube:
http://www.wrongway.org/work/solver.tar.gz
The readme.txt file states
This program is released under the GNU General Public License.
It may be modified and/or redistributed under the terms of said
Hello,
On Dec/21/2006, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 21/12/06, Carles Pina i Estany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not possible to distribute new versions of gnuplot (only original
source code and patches), etc.
According to the 4th DFSG:
Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The file /usr/lib/tkchooser/icons/winpop.pnm from the tkchooser package
uses an
microsoft windows logo. Is that legally permitted?
Please CC or BCC me, I'm not on the list.
Regards,
Daniel van Eeden
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On 12/21/06 11:00, Daniel van Eeden wrote:
The file /usr/lib/tkchooser/icons/winpop.pnm from the tkchooser package
uses an
microsoft windows logo. Is that legally permitted?
Please CC or BCC me, I'm not on the list.
That's probably considered fair use for the purpose of which it was
On 12/21/06 09:53, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I'm curious as to the status of the following code for solving a
Rubik's cube:
http://www.wrongway.org/work/solver.tar.gz
The readme.txt file states
This program is released under the GNU General Public License.
It may be
On 12/21/06 08:18, Gervase Markham wrote:
I admit this is a bit stretched, but I find it hard to understand how we
come to a position where Debian can label anything it likes with any
trademarks it likes in its distribution, as long as it doesn't write the
trademarks on the outside of the CD.
On 12/11/06 14:02, Nick Phillips wrote:
On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each
distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name.
At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder can
On 12/19/06 07:50, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote:
Hi,
I've filled an ITP[1] on a freehdl. The upstream authors licensed it as
GPL, but I've found in the source tarball one vhdl header file
How did you determine the upstream authors didn't have permission?
( ieee/numeric_bit.vhdl), with
Jeff Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/21/06 11:00, Daniel van Eeden wrote:
The file /usr/lib/tkchooser/icons/winpop.pnm from the tkchooser package
uses an
microsoft windows logo. Is that legally permitted?
Please CC or BCC me, I'm not on the list.
That's
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:43:57 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
This means that forbidding derived works to carry the same name as
the original software is acceptable.
I believe that forbidding an unlimited and arbitrary list of
Reserved
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:51:55 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
* 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
*support of your modified version, and
This one could be free, but there has been some debate over similar
clauses. I'm thinking this is acceptable
I think this
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:53:25 -0600 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
[...]
The readme.txt file states
This program is released under the GNU General Public License.
It may be modified and/or redistributed under the terms of said
license. The creator is not responsible for
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:57:56 +0200 Carles Pina i Estany wrote:
[...]
and for example, number 3 is:
---
* 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
*support of your modified version, and
---
If I execute gnuplot --help I would expect
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:53:25 -0600 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
The readme.txt file states
This program is released under the GNU General Public License.
It may be modified and/or redistributed under the terms of said
license. The
El jue, 21-12-2006 a las 14:19 -0800, Jeff Carr escribió:
On 12/19/06 07:50, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote:
Hi,
I've filled an ITP[1] on a freehdl. The upstream authors licensed it as
GPL, but I've found in the source tarball one vhdl header file
How did you determine the upstream
19 matches
Mail list logo
