Hi!
I'm currently packagin mixmaster 2.04b45 which is under the gpl, no
problem there :).
Unfortunaly newer versions of mixmaster are not released under the gpl
any more.
One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
paragraph (1.b.iii):
[you may modify and
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Peter Palfrader wrote:
...
One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
paragraph (1.b.iii):
[you may modify and distribute the source only iff you]
provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
such modifications or
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 07:22:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Peter Palfrader wrote:
...
One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
paragraph (1.b.iii):
[you may modify and distribute the source only iff you]
provide Anonymizer
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 07:22:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Peter Palfrader wrote:
...
One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
paragraph (1.b.iii):
[you may modify and distribute the source only iff you]
provide Anonymizer
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think this is DFSG-free and can go to main.
I don't. WHat if Anonymizer Inc. goes out of business? All of a sudden
everyone loses the right to modify and distribute the source code.
That's right.
The oother question is: Is it DFSG-free if
Scripsit Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... and grant
Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
distribute the modifications or work in its products.
DFSG-free?
Yes, I think so.
A lot of people will not *like* it,
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:00:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
A lot of people will not *like* it, for political reasons, but it
does not affect the *practical* side of what you can to with free
software (fix bugs, change functionality, share fixes and changes
with with friends and
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:00:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[you must allow the author the right to use your modifications in
proprietary programs].
it does not affect the *practical* side of what you can to with free
software (fix bugs,
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 02:39:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:00:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[you must allow the author the right to use your modifications in
proprietary programs].
Oops, snipped too much.
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The part I was reacting to was:
The oother question is: Is it DFSG-free if this part of the license would
be changed to something like send us the modifications by email; if our
company is without reach you are allowed to do without this
Adrian Bunk wrote:
I think this is DFSG-free and can go to main.
Would you care to justify that remark? You could start by telling us
how it doesn't conflict with sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the DFSG. (Have
you _read_ the DFSG?)
--
see shy jo
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
I think this is DFSG-free and can go to main.
Would you care to justify that remark? You could start by telling us
how it doesn't conflict with sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the DFSG. (Have
you _read_ the DFSG?)
Yes, I did read the
On Tue, 09 May 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
This is similar to the Apple notification clause. If Anonymizer Inc. goes
out of business or decides to take down their mail server you can no longer
satisfy this term and thus can't modify the software at all. Notification
clauses have been argued
13 matches
Mail list logo
