* Radu Spineanu:
I was looking over flowc[1], and wondering if i could package it.
However i am not sure about the license[2].
It contains some restrictions about distribution:
'3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following
* Francesco Poli:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
But in my experience, when
contacting authors, a great many of them simply copied boilerplate
from an old BSD license, and if you discuss with them the rationale
given by the University of California when they
* Joel Aelwyn:
4) The DFSG tradition is muddy (at best) on whether it refers to the
4-clause or 3-clause variant of the license -
It's pretty clear: The DFSG are older than the wide-spread adoption of
the 3-clause BSD license. Until UC Berkeley relicensed the Berkeley
Software Distribution
* Ben Johnson:
Mike A. Harrison still does not sound satisfied by the
explanation of nv's maintainer:
While it is true this is an open source driver in a
sense, in practice, it really isn't very open source,
because the driver source is heavily obfuscated. It
uses hexadecimal I/O
* Daniel Stone:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just
your assumptation?
While you cannot prove it, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would
ever choose to write anything that way.
After a
* Sami Liedes:
This certainly seems to make the works effectively PD in the US;
however it almost seems as if that was carefully worded to _not_ place
works in the PD, only to make the US government unable to enforce
their copyright under the US law.
AFAIK, this is indeed the standard
* Måns Rullgård:
I was of the impression that Quake 2 had been placed on an official
list of restricted publications, and that this was the primary cause
of concern.
Does Debian distribute the data files? The engine itself is not on
the German Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
But this doesn't
* MJ Ray:
Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was told that it is now up to the FTP masters to review the package
and admit it into the distribution. I was also told that these people
are worried that MPlayer might infringe upon software patents. [...]
..might infringe upon patents
* Humberto Massa Guimarães:
But this doesn't matter at all. Our guardians became frustrated
with the necessity to index both the German translation and the
original, so they installed a mandatory rating system for computer
games (similar to movies in Germany and other countries). The
main
* Stephen Frost:
I'm not entirely sure that what Debian does wouldn't fall under the
descriptive use concept. Debian GNU/Linux is more like Debian for
GNU/Linux than DebianLinux.
I don't think anybody knows how trademark law applies in the context
of goods which are expected to be shared
* Dylan Thurston:
I'm surprised that someone thinks that there's any controversy on this
point. As I understand it, the current situation is that, with the
release of sarge, everything in Debian should be DFSG free, including
programs, documentation, and miscellaneous files (as in this
/patente/wirkungen/jpeg/index.en.html
--
Florian Weimer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT fax +49-711-685-5898
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
to tick off in 1986 (I'm not sure
about this; you know probably much more about these details), the
patent does not expire anytime soon, I fear.
--
Florian Weimer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other
modifications derived from the Public Domain or from
the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way
shall still be considered the Standard Version.
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Selling the library is not forbidden.
Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself.
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this would be a derivative work of the Usenet postings, which are
copyright their authors.
And what if you do this someplace where this is not the case,
according to local law?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fortunately, the lzw patent expires this coming June.
There is more than one LZW patent on the world. :-(
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a special exception.
I don't understand the paragraph!
Are the files in the dir still GPL? Is it a kind of dual license, GPL and
at your option the extra modification/linking right?
Yes, such exception clauses are used in many places (C++
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeData.html there's
a version 3.2.
Hmm, is this file Free? There's a license on that same page:
Limitations on Rights to Redistribute This Data
[...]
Information can be extracted
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
Why should I believe you instead of Dan? Do you have a counter to the
cite of Galoob v. Nintendo?
Debian wants to distribute more than just source code patches (which
can form derivative works under copyright, but we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then
unenforceable.
What? How?
Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either,
but does hold you to its restrictions.
The GPL doesn't contain any restrictions.
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But trying to insist on a logo is looking perilously non-free in any
case.
Logo requirements can make moot all copyright licenses, for that
matter.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug
Are you sure that there are any countries which do not forbid removing
copyright notices?
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, does this group think the ASP loophole is worth closing, and if so,
what is the right way to close it? If not, why not?
In my daily work, I adapt a lot of free software and use it in an
ASP-like environment. If the licenses closed the ASP loophole
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not in favor of the obligatory publishing clause.
Indeed, isn't that sort of clause the very reason we've refused to allow
other software into Debian?
Hmm, QPLed software (which contains a obnoxious clause in this
direction) has made its way into
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe they provide a sort of stripped down client computer with a
browser (possibly all proprietary) that is set up to use their
server for all your computing needs.
In this case, you lose becaus you haven't got a general-purpose
computer to run free
Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
into situations where it was not obvious in a particular instance what
the preferred form for modifications was?
I know of one Debian package whose source code is the output of a
CASE
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
Without clarification from the author of each document about how he
interprets this statement, I don't
First of all, let's suppose that the license is DFSG free. It's:
| UCD Terms of Use
|
| Disclaimer
|
| The Unicode Character Database is provided as is by Unicode,
| Inc. No claims are made as to fitness for any particular
| purpose. No warranties of any kind are expressed or
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make
copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies
*internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies
publically or to modify the file.
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The next release of GNU miscfiles will have a version that is
really free. We're going to first transform the existing file into
some other useful format, which will then be licensed entirely under
GPL.
Nice. If you use a format which marks
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can make a manpage, but you must
have to include inside the manpage
Actually, it's sufficient to refer to this information in the SEE ALSO
section of the manpage, so that elaborateness of the GFDL doesn't
interfere with the intendend use of the
Andrew Stribblehill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, the current licence is below:
9menu is free software, and is Copyright (c) 1994 by David Hogan and
Arnold Robbins. Permission is granted to all sentient beings to use
this software, to make copies of it, and to distribute those copies,
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unless the FSF is the sole copyright holder of the relevant GFDL document,
their interpretation of the license is irrelevant.
Yours is as well, and so is everyone's on this list.
Then why do we discuss at all?
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
free license, Debian in general does not consider material under the
GFDL to be free.
I think it's premature to include such a statement in an official
Good point.
Can you suggest a re-phrase for the GFDL question?
I think it is fair to say
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, I rephrased the GFDL stuff a bit. Let me know if you're not
comfortable with it.
Debian in general does not consider material under the GFDL with any
significant clauses activated to be free.
Almost no one would seriously contend that the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Three problems with that hypothesis:-
1. We don't have any way of distinguishing software and this documentation
in a safe manner. My local research suggests that software is generally
treated as a literary work and electronic documentation definitely is.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion we actually try our damnedest to make sure, to the best
of our knowledge, that people *can* rely of having the DFSG freedoms
when they use software from Debian.
But this is not true. Almost never, the source code itself is
examined,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the record, I'm also happy with the version that is in Barak's faq
presently (which starts with You should take this answer as a total
disclaimer of everything. ...)
It's fine with me, too.
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian
Linux', I presume.
To my
Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about
your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just
an ordinary relicensing question, after all).
Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather clueless
reactions on my part. I'm sorry.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up
to them.
Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC
work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual
Wolfgang Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this mean that we have to put mozilla to non-free?
I don't think so. AFAIK, these restrictions are not imposed by the
license, and apply to U.S. citizens only.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part
Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My question is: what are the guidelines on packaging code that has
patented technology? Does GIMP's GIF support
JPEG is the better example. It's about in the same league as MP3, in
terms of enforcement, IMHO.
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually
meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only
guaranteed way to meet this requirement is to review the source code
they package.
The guidelines only require
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
the free software movement and pretend that we advocate open source.
So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
necessary.
It's true that many have gladly
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that
invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.
Such things are very hard to
Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes the UnrealIRCd license:
In order to continue with the download and installation of UnrealIRCd
you must accept the following license agreement:
[Full copy of GPL]
The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at
anytime as long as
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues,
Soon, you might need it to distribute documentation for central
software components. In fact, some DDs I asked think that this
strengthening of non-free is a very favorable side effect of the
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is from the Creative Commons at
http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text
It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.)
What do you think: DFSG free?
It depends. If it is
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't
consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for
editing.
Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
Not really. The license simply
Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption).
Or compression. There are mostly plain-text PDF files, but they are
quite unusual.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
This is not true. There is no way for me to create a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social Contract).
Not quite. Texts of licenses and logos typically fail DFSG tests.
Lots of graphics (and probably some audio material, too) come in a
form that
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can
not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was
source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no
source code is
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
One such CRAN package, GPL'ed and all, was written by someone in the
financial industry which happens to be one of the preferred habitats of
layers, and so it carries an extra rider. Could you good souls please opine
if the following debian/copyright is ok for
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
1995 is not redistributable over the Internet.
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Why do you want to include it? I can't see any indication that you have
Same reason as for other packages I maintain: Because it is very useful code.
Sorry, I wanted to know why you think you have to include this text in
the debian/copyright file. It doesn't look
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Right now I'm not sure if there is a problem at all. It don't think it
is necessary to inlcude upstream's terms for the _initial_ download, if
upstream doesn't mandate it.
Interesting thought. But then they also have some not so pretty do not
distribute
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
1995 is not redistributable over the Internet.
Can you give me spme online Resources about it ?
In Germany, a copyright
Andreas Barth wrote:
Online distribution of copyrighted works is known since 1995 (in the
legal sense, at least that's the year that is mentioned in all such
discussions).
Sorry, but that's not totally true. There was substantial distribution
via modem networks before (e.g. Fido). IMHO
D. Starner wrote:
Okay, I have an Algol68 compiler written at Oklahoma State University
in 1971. (This is not a hypothetical - I have this code, and have
considered porting it to a more modern system, say Fortran 77 targetting
a VAX.) Is it clearly in the public domain?
No, the legal
A few days ago, ISO has confirmed that the country, currency and
language codes are freely usable:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2003/Ref871.html
| Ref.: 871
| 30 September 2003
|
| ISO reaffirms free-of-charge use of its country, currency and language
| codes
|
| ISO
Fedor Zuev wrote:
AFAIK, you are right in general, but there a small
correction needed. I apologize, if you cite any official source, but
all I read about this appears slightly otherwise. Copyright holder
cannot grant right for as yet unknown types of use, not the right
for
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
I'm quite sure we have cryptographic software in main that is
patent-encumbered and illegal for other reasons in many non-US countries
worldwide. Isn't this exactly the same thing? It's been rehashed many
times.
What's worse, GIF and JPEG are now essentially in the
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to
be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what
constitutes a work based on [the Program] under Section 2 [of the
GPL], the manuals qualify.
Huh? Why do you think that
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a
(specific) Texinfo interpreter?
Because that's not what we're doing. We're
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference
implementations in the SRFI's. An SRFI, Scheme Request For
Implementation, is the process by which the Scheme community agrees on
standard libraries and features for various scheme
implementations. Every SRFI
* MJ Ray:
On 2004-10-22 18:24:02 +0100 martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
please refer to #277794. One single line needs to be erased from the
package because otherwise, the package is unconstitutional in
Germany (and Austria). [...]
For other -legal contributors, this involves a
* Piotr Roszatycki:
I think it is BSD-like license with advertising clause.
It looks more like a 3-clause BSD license, *without* the obnoxious
advertising clause.
Is it fit to the main archive?
I think so. However, IIRC, Bastian Blank is working on packaging VCP
and its dependencies.
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Minimizing the probability that Debian, that or contributers to
Debian will be involved in legal action arising from Debian's
distribution or modification of software.
I don't think this is among the goals of debian-legal. Can you
remember discussions
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:28:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
*Sigh* Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The license itself appears to be a
violation of the FSF's copyright in the preamble of the GPL; the FSF
doesn't grant any right to modify that
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
likely that the issue will become moot.
One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014.
I'm sorry, but you can't just wait until the issue goes away.
--
Current mail
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is JPEG any different than GIF was
I don't remember that anyone was actually sued for using the LZW
compression algorithm (certainly not a company rather close to
Debian). Maybe the case was so clear that every paid royalties. In
this case, it
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections.
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation
license, as long as the invariant sections
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that this position --- and similar ones --- were voiced by
several people. However, for the sake of completeness, it should be
pointed out that:
1) None of the proponents of this position came up with a good
definition of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is
non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as
a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully,
after the software is documentation
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 04 May 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
A few packages contain software (well, everything's software these
days) which is cryptographically protected against modification.
This seems to violate DFSG §3.
Uh, if you're refering to the PGP keys
* Niklas Vainio:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
My understanding is that copyright laws speak
* Russ Allbery:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate
* Henning Makholm:
Well, exactly in the LGPL case we don't need to scrutinize the entire
license. We can do with noticing that any work covered by the LGPL is
effectively dual-licensed with pure GPL, so the freedom of the former
follows from freedom of the latter.
Linking with
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo:
May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is
forbidden?
Probably in none. But publishing your results is not automatically
allowed, and sometimes, there are safeguards against producing a clone
(which serves as a replacement of the
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would
be difficult if they weren't.
Provided that we have complete source code and all the DFSG
requirements are fulfilled, they are acceptable. This has to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is no
* Josh Triplett:
Agreed. In the text could imply right next to where you differ from
the standard, which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
non-free. Without the in the text, modifiers could simply add a
blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work saying this has been
changed
* Josh Triplett:
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Josh Triplett:
One other issue: does and the nroff source is included mean that if I
want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems
onerous for physical
* Michael Poole:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions?
I could send you a copy of RT3 without the offending paragraph. Would
this make you somewhat more comfortable with RT's license?
--
Current mail filters:
* Jacobo Tarrio:
O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ás 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions.
... which are not Copyright or Intellectual Property laws [...]
Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover
* Matthew Palmer:
Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover
databases.
Mechanical compilations, as well as those requiring creative effort?
Mechanical compilations as well. Of course, most of our codified
moral rights don't apply to them. 8-)
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty, though, I shouldn't try to interpret contracts. 8-
* Brian M. Carlson:
Actually, the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses from
Creative Commons are not DFSG-free. See the summary on debian-legal
[0].
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution
* Josh Triplett:
The Dictator Test:
A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
applicable laws.
What about warranty disclaimers? Or quite reasonable clauses dealing
with patent issues?
Much
* Nathanael Nerode:
You have hit the nail on the head. The warranty disclaimers don't
say You agree not to sue... or You agree that there is no
warranty...
Wrong, there are certainly some cases:
| THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
| LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
But isn't the Dictator Test trying to prevent that?
License grantors do not have a private right of legislation; that is,
they are
* Branden Robinson:
What about warranty disclaimers?
What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding
copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards?
It depends on who receives a license. For end users, the warranty
disclaimers are completely without
* Branden Robinson:
In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Branden Robinson:
In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached
* MJ Ray:
On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
1 - 100 of 393 matches
Mail list logo
