Minute Man? No More
Bypass the Doctor Get Drugs Now http://www.s0ma.com/p/coupon/thronmat No longer recieve these messages s0ma.coml.php April is the cruellest month.
Re: modification of zlib/libpng license, is this legally usable?
Right, thanks alot. Would this apply to usage within eg. RHEL? What I don't want is eg. someone to get it, implement it in their program, and then sell it without permission. On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 19:47 +0800, Wei Mingzhi wrote: This is okay as long as you don't call the result as ZLib/libpng License, but always note that any restrictions like the 4th clause will render the program non-free! --- Anders Bergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi I've modified the zlib/libpng license to be a bit more restrictive for commercial usage.. I would like to get some feedback, and I also wonder if it's legally usable. LICENSE Copyright (c) year copyright holders This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any non-commercial purpose, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. For commercial usage these restrictions applies aswell: 4. You must have written permission by the respective copyright holders for using this software. 5. The usage of this software must be acknowledged somewhere easily accessible for the end user, such as the about box or product documentation. /LICENSE Anders _ Do You Yahoo!? 150MP3 http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/yisou/music/*http://music.yisou.com/ http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/yisou/image/*http://image.yisou.com 1G1000 http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/1g/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/mail_1g/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
Evan Prodromou wrote (nice essay, by the way): We haven't yet seen the package that was so absolutely indispensable that we had to give up our principles to include it in Debian. Well, to nitpick, the GPL license text might qualify as that absolutely indispensible case. License texts are a *very* special case, though, for many reasons which have been discussed before (license proliferation is actually bad; even if it's modifiable we have to ship it unmodified in order to ship the things licensed under it; if the law didn't make it necessary we wouldn't ship license texts at all; it's easy to tell a license text apart from the rest of Debian because it's always in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright; have I missed any?) Anyway, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to come up with anything other than another license text which is as essential as the text of the GPL (or which has as little negative impact if allowed in) so your points still stand. Oh. I contribute this message to the public domain, or if that is not legally possible, I grant everyone a perpetual irrevocable license to treat it as if it is in the public domain. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Illegal code distribution from http://people.debian.org/~cowboy/debian/x3270/
On Mon, 11 April 2005, Richard A Nelson wrote: It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails and instead the pacage was removed. You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the expense of the pragmatists amongs us :( The need for a suitable permission statement from the rights holder(s) for Debian to distribute any given copyrighted work is a legal requirement, and has nothing at all to do with the DFSG. I still need and use x3270, in fact I've just put the newest version up at: http://people.debian.org/~cowboy/debian/x3270/dists/unstable/ As stated in the follow-ups to the bug report, the package was removed from the FTP archive in order to reduce the Project's potential liability for copyright infringement. Now, thanks to you, the Project is *still* hosting and distributing copyrighted code from within its infrastructure without the permissions required to legally do so. I'm assuming that the only reason DSA haven't already moved to enforce the Machine Usage Policy[1] is that they're not yet aware of this most blatant and deliberate breach on your part. CC to -admin added in order to bring it to their attention. [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
Re: Illegal code distribution from http://people.debian.org/~cowboy/debian/x3270/
(-admin dropped; nothing in this reply needs to go there) On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:34:32AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: On Mon, 11 April 2005, Richard A Nelson wrote: It seem to me the the situation can be cleared by sending few emails and instead the pacage was removed. You've only read about the most recent issue... This has been battled for *many* years and the DFSG crew is growing more vigilant - at the expense of the pragmatists amongs us :( If pragmatism is I don't care whether a work is Free or not, you're in the wrong project. (No, really. Debian is about Free Software, and if that's so low a priority for you that you'll label is an expense, you're really in the wrong place.) But if pragmatism is I don't care whether I might get myself or the project sued by distributing something, you might be more at home with a warez group. :) That said, I see a license at http://x3270.bgp.nu/license.html. I don't know if there's any indication that some source files in the distribution are not, in fact, available under that license, but I wouldn't consider simply lacking a notice on a source file to be an indication of much of anything, as that license seems to claim to apply to the x3270 package as a whole. On the other hand, I can't find any licensing information at all in the tarball itself, which at the very least isn't a good sign of the upstream author's licensing diligence. (Sorry for not spending the time to review #248853 in full, 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]
