instead of going
back to court.)
I seem to recall this issue being raised with this or some similar
license, but I can't find it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)
Damn. I want a Mozilla shake ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Or as I'm sure someone will say
there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL
logo, right?
You seem to be effectively diluting our list ... :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
of venue because it's tucked away after
the choice of law, and because Brett said there wasn't one. (This license
seems to fail the not so long that you can hide an unabridged dictionary
in a footnote and nobody will notice test; unfortunately, the GPL does,
too ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
to get changes into upstream are completely irrelevant to
freeness.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
being weakened, so that's not much consolation.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
text and the relevant law that's
important; if what he describes accurately follows from those, then
it's very relevant. (I have no opinion of whether it actually does.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the group).
Sure. The tendency a few people have these days of trying to push Debian's
standards and scope of freedom to as low and narrow a focus as possible makes
me a little wary when people understate that scope (but I don't think you're
among them).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
it
is not.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that it's very clearly tied to the
DFSG.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;
I'm interested in the general problem of people specifying the preferred
form for modification, which I believe is tantamount to placing an additional
restriction beyond the GPL. Let me know if I'm way off base.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
lets him choose a specific source format, or if he's confused in
some other way.
This work is under the GPL. An example of a form of modification I consider
source is Pascal (or TeX or PNG) seems fine--it just gives an idea of the
author's intent.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
was
better without ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license, with the problems I and Matthew mentioned--but there's
currently no requirement to do so to go in Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the long
debates on this topic, I still don't have a very strong opinion myself,
and I don't think there are yet any consenses about patent defense clauses
at all.)
[1] https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl.txt
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
, that this
opinion puts me into an extremely small minority.
I don't believe you're in the minority at all--if you are, it's probably
time to scrap the DFSG entirely, since the Project must no longer care
about Free Software principles at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
don't need to be
a DD to contribute. Please come back when you have some actual
arguments.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:14:15PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This has come up several times, so I'm CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get their
take on this. FSF folks: please ignore the documentation aspect above;
I'm interested in the general problem of people specifying the preferred
form
of any.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
licenses in the context of a particular
program or not. (Of course, if we do know that a licensor has a particular
history--such as UW--it's something to keep in mind.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
that's claiming that Debian needs to
hold a vote to deem new restrictions non-free (a discussion which we've
had: it would cripple Debian's ability to remain free), not me.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
something that
has any real meaning.
I usually recommend the MIT license (attached) as the simplest commonly-
used license for people who want to allow people to do whatever they want.
--
Glenn Maynard
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software
that grant permissions and make a work Free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, and in the interests of
Free Software; claiming that boil down to I don't care if it restricts
freedom; the DFSG doesn't talk about it aren't.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 04:06:32AM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:40:10 -0500
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I've already explained how this relates to the DFSG, despite the DFSG
not attempting to exhaustively list non-free restrictions.)
I understand
such packages.
But still this does not make buggy packages not DFSG-free, nor totally
unacceptable.
But that's entirely irrelevant, of course, as I explained.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the DFSG as a set of pesky rules to be weaseled around and
dictionary-lawyered, instead of a set of guidelines to be followed.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
heard of revoking a work from
the public domain (if you could do that, it was never in the public domain
to begin with).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
access-type anon-ftp is unsupported --]
Err. Better to include the actual text, and not a link (especially
not a link that not even Mutt can grok).
--
Glenn Maynard
Network Working GroupS. Bradner
Internet-Draft Harvard
technology. It seems to be
The standards of other organizations are also non-free; this merely
says they're non-free, so we should be, too.
Sorry, Stephane, but all of this sounds more like a blunt refusal than
progress.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
and analyze it, which is much more work (even if it's short). Nothing
is gained by doing this; it's just license proliferation.
Please see also the first section of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00088.html
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
that you advertise
powered by Maia Mailguard, even if you've modified the software in
incompetent ways. It's the opposite of a renaming clause--it essentially
prohibits renaming.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
that, then it should be
pretty easy to convince him to actually change the license, and not just
clarify or interpret the license (which gets very hairy once you
have more than one copyright holder).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
software because they want to?
Freedom of software begins with choosing if it is licensed with a
GPL-compatible or not.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you just said. :) (I'm not able to
come up with an interpretation of what you said that relates to my
post ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
but not believe a problem exists.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
might even
cause problems. Probably the only reason it hasn't caused problems
is that it's probably unenforcable, but that's a dangerous reason to
call something free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Please see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00267.html
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of reasoning that
one can use and still take Freeness seriously.
--
Glenn Maynard
. Is it
really a good idea to distribute such a time-bomb?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
don't get a license to redistribute--you never had one to begin
with.
I'm not sure; part of the license says I'm allowed to sublicense, after
all, and I have no idea how that interacts with the LUCENT ... clause.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
*
to patents affecting the US, and never has been. AFAIK, non-us was an
archive that was uploaded to from outside the US, but could be freely and
legally used from inside the US--not an archive which was completely off-
limits to the US.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
...
I didn't find this rule in
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
A convention is not a rule. It's perfectly normal for conventions to
form which don't have the weight of rules, and for people to gripe a
bit when those conventions are broken.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:10:47AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
We hate reading it, too.
What cause, exactly, do you think random snideness and derisiveness
serves?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
is actually authored in an obfuscated form does; for
example, a package containing submissions to obfuscated source contests.
That's the actual, honest source form of that software. The GPL's
definition, incidentally, handles this case elegantly as well.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
it wrong and cause further headaches down the line.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of source has no obvious relation to throwing hardware support out
the window. What are you talking about?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, and intuitively, at
least, it seems best to point to the canonical URLs for things like licensing
FAQs (but as long as it's identical, of course, it doesn't really matter.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
upstream authors to talk to if
the license seems ambiguous, and so on.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Apologies if I was just rehashing old stuff--a long work week made me
not notice that this thread is already a couple dozen posts old ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/MIT license instead.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
notices in --show-legalese, that seems to qualify as
supporting documentation.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, that's *your* problem. I don't even know
what you're trying to say here--you put your copyrighted code in a header and
I copied it into my object file--that's your problem, not mine! doesn't make
any sense at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
which bits have whose copyright? Yow!
That's not particularly hard or unusual; just merge two people's code
together and let it go through a year or two of refactoring. You can't
just leave it in the sun and let one person's code evaporate so you can
get the rest. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
enough and all that, but that's the licensor's fault, not the law's.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
header file, the object file is undistributable as a direct result of
containing bits from my header files.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:38:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
rest of the world
you think it's worse. I asked why you think it's a perversion. (In other
words, what is your perspective that makes you consider is worse?) You
won't answer.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:16:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:31:27AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, there isn't. It's very simple
just attacks things--people
and laws alike--out of sheer habit, not for any particular reason.)
It's fairly disappointing that a simple request for rationale--an
honest attempt to understand someone's opinion--results in such a
waste of time as this thread, and no rationale.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:34:42PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Glenn Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Andrew seems to avoid Red Herring arguments more than I.
I asked for the rationale behind
.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of freedom in Debian, being among that group of people who
apparently despise the fact that the Social Contract applies to everything,
even *his* pet non-free software. Don't be too surprised if few people
waste time arguing with him anymore.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
. :) You can't draw a strict
boundary between overlapping sets.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
non-free, it
doesn't mean the licenses need to be changed (it won't help), and it doesn't
necessarily mean that obviously bogus interpretations would stand in court--
that's one of the big reasons we strongly recommend using well-established
licenses (such as the above three).
--
Glenn Maynard
complete (and obviously
entirely deliberate) inability to discuss anything at all civilly. Even
the subject of a certain Drinking Game a while back has a much better
track record than you lately. *plonk*
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
their licensing, but I'd have no
idea where to start. :) Somebody else on this list might have some ideas;
alternatively, you could ask the FSF for help--I'd expect that reducing
incorrect, confusing claims about what the GPL means is something they'd
be very interested in.
--
Glenn Maynard
this, it's ours!
(I'm bordering on being happy to see this level of lunacy--the further
patents are pushed, the more likely it is we'll see some patent reform
in our lifetimes ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
that the work they
are distributing is a derivative work--but you wouldn't necessarily further
argue that they had no right to make it in the first place.)
--
Glenn Maynard
I'm not qualified to debate, but would
be interested in hearing the FSF's response.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as they are (what about my helicopter sim, Apache Combat, and
my military combat game, Apache Warriors?), are a big step up from
complete invariance, though.
(At least the new Apache license dropped that dumb clause--but not until
after damage was done; eg. Subversion.)
--
Glenn Maynard
(and the tags might be wrong).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and have it be so.
And regardless of whether they can be changed or not, that doesn't mean they
have any binding significance, as I mentioned in my previous reply.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of people
actually use it (google for it to see just how many).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
It's an example of how no consistent distinction between documentation and
programs can be drawn: the source *is* the documentation. I think it's a
clear demonstration of how it's impossible to meaningfully hold programs and
documentation to different standards of freedom.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Now, it's possible
political spiels inside source code. Oops.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/A.
[1] I don't use Java; I'm assuming Javadoc works like Doxygen, but I'm
not sure.
[2] I'm not sure if slander or libel are the relevant laws, here.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(and fonts, and
graphics, and sounds). Permission to modify is critical for free
documentation. Nothing that can't be modified, adapted, and reused
is free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
consistently.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
I have the same question around for some months.
I have read the link above but I didn't find any reply.
Any extra clue?
Those of us on d-legal have no idea what your question is; please restate
it. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
) which
are usually one-way gates.
I just point this out to be fair to the GFDL: GPL-incompatibility is
fairly inherent. I think the right fix would have been for GPLv3 to
be more clearly worded for documentation, rather than creating a whole
new license.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
, a boilerplate part of declaring copyright.)
If there's a license granting permissions elsewhere, it's probably
harmless.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
appear to have said that it's not part of the license, and:
This one falls, for me, under the since it's so easy to fix, why exactly
aren't they fixing it? category.
... and the fact that they refuse to fix such a simple thing bodes very ill
for getting more serious problems fixed ...
--
Glenn
only heard of problems with the
public domain in other jurisdictions (Germany?), not in the US.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Discrimination
Against Fields of Endeavor).
You might find it moderately difficult to get people to help you write a
proprietary license here. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but the derisive,
knee-jerk dismissal of legal issues at its start--a year ago, to be fair--puts
me in little mood to read the thread much further. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or
altered from any source or altered source distribution, not requiring it for
binaries.
(I havn't considered this to be enough of a problem to consider making a new
license for it, though. License proliferation, and worse, people writing
licenses without counsel, is worse.)
--
Glenn Maynard
as permissive, non-copyleft licenses, are
certainly truly- and DFSG-free.
Please CC me on any responses; I'm not subscribed to this list.
Please set your Mail-Followup-To header accordingly.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
distribute under these conditions; in addition, John
may offer you a new license in the future, terms which you may accept or
ignore?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clause is clearly non-free
and probably unenforcable, eg. ... and I can change these terms at will
at any time, period, but that's not the case here.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Glenn Maynard
Pine License and Legal Notices
Pine and Pico are registered trademarks of the University of Washington. No
commercial use of these trademarks may be made without prior written permission
of the University of Washington.
Pine, Pico, and Pilot software and its included text are Copyright
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
is clearly non-free *without* any
1 - 100 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
