Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Steve Greenland 
On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license,
 which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the
 version number.
 Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
 two 0.6.1 versions.

This is the most alarming section. Did the patch go into the new
proprietary version? If so, does Igor know? Does he approve? If I was
Igor, I would *insist* on seeing the current source code, and making
sure that the patch did not appear (assuming, of course, that I had
licensed my patch appropriately).

Steve

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Samuel Hocevar 
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
 On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
  two 0.6.1 versions.
 
 This is the most alarming section. Did the patch go into the new
 proprietary version?

Yes; it is in the changelog.

 If so, does Igor know?

I have reasons to think that yes, he knows. But neither him
nor the original IglooFTP author answered me yet.

 Does he approve?

No idea, sorry.

 If I was
 Igor, I would *insist* on seeing the current source code, and making
 sure that the patch did not appear (assuming, of course, that I had
 licensed my patch appropriately).

Alas, this seems to be a problem: the patch available for
download has no copyright notice on it, no license.

I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
code ? Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ?

Regards,
Sam.
-- 
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.via.ecp.fr/~sam/
echo what is the universe|tr a-z  0-7-0-729|sed 's/9.//g;s/-/+/'|bc

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Ben Pfaff 
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
   under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
   code ?

Yes.

Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ?

Definitely not.

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Brian Ristuccia 
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:35:41PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
 Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
code ?
 
 Yes.

But only if the patch is substantial enough in itself to be protected by
copyright.

Oneliners like

-if (symbol) {
+if (!symbol) {

are not substantial patches. 

-- 
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cxhextris licence

1999-07-30 Thread Joey Hess 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Agreed, it's not DFSG-compliant as it stands. I don't think they really mean
 it to be, they just worded it badly. Want to talk with them?

I've fired off a letter, but all the addressed I have access to are 10 years
old and bounced. If anyone wants to track this down, be my guest, I've moved
it to non-free in the meantime.

-- 
see shy jo