Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that
the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being
supreme in any way. It exists. That is all. It that so har to
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I vote that we treat the copyright to this list the same way we treat
patents generally: wait for someone to complain before pulling the
list. The situation is analogous; just as we cannot know which patents
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 11:06 pm, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
[snip]
You can not treat a list of words like you can code.
Hypothetical question...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
- piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
- automatically removed all
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:08:49PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
What I meant, was that Branden cut all his statements that you responded
to, leaving just your responses, which were harsh out of context.
I felt they were pretty harsh *in* contest.
I guess your mileage varies, and we should in
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:36:21AM +, Paul Martin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[Bugreport: proftpd-mysql linksed with GPLed libmysqlclient10 and OpenSSL]
If I find time I'll try to find somebody to write a nice letter (or
correct one I'd write) to
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:05:21PM +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
4.11.2002 pisze Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license, because the advertising
clause in OpenSSL's license would add an additional restriction on
the GPL licensed software.
Branden wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Mika Fischer wrote:
---
The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at anytime
as
long as notice is given on the unrealircd.com main page at least 24 hours
before changes take effect. The modified agreement
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:07:15PM +, Wookey wrote:
[ It's possible that this is different in American English - much as
they don't distinguish beteen 'ensure' (make sure) and 'insure' (buy
insurance), using 'insure' for both? In which case if the EULA is written
by/for Americans then it
Hello, ...
It has been my intention of packaging the unicorn driver for Bewan ADSL
modems (PCI st and USB). I have contacted upstream about the licencing
issues (original upstream did not have any licence with the drivers they
distribute), and they are willing to release the driver under a free
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since this is a linux kernel module, the GPL makes the most
sense for this.
...
Would it be possible to release this under a GPL + exception licence, or
something such ?
That is the usual advice for *applications* that have to include
non-GPL parts.
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:38:47PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since this is a linux kernel module, the GPL makes the most
sense for this.
...
Would it be possible to release this under a GPL + exception licence, or
something such ?
That is
I'm not an expert, but I hope my thoughts are helpful.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is a problem though, the current module contains code they control
plus a piece of proprietary code implementing a software ADSL decoder or
somethign such, which they don't have the sources for.
It
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:11:12PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I'm not an expert, but I hope my thoughts are helpful.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is a problem though, the current module contains code they control
plus a piece of proprietary code implementing a software
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Wemm, but the driver minus the user space thingy is GPLed, and can be
distributed with a standard kernel, and there is no breach of the GPL as
long as nobody use it, right ?
The same thing would apply if you simply moved the proprietary part into
a separate
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:43:47PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Wemm, but the driver minus the user space thingy is GPLed, and can be
distributed with a standard kernel, and there is no breach of the GPL as
long as nobody use it, right ?
The same
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear.
and then later in the DEC description
(NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS
To the best of my knowledge, all the files I used to build
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear.
and then later in the DEC description
(NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS
To the best of my
Most of people who actually hold the copyrights (if they even claimed
any copyright at all, which is doubtful), are unknown and cannot be
contacted.
Legally, the fact that they are unknown and cannot be contacted is no
help; everything I've ever worked with in copyrights indicates that
that's a
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear.
and then later in the DEC description
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
- piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
- automatically removed all sequences of characters that failed
- removed all duplicate words from
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Would the resulting list of words be a new creation, unencumbered by
any license attached to the spell-checker ? ;-)
No, this would be a derivative work of the Usenet postings, which are
copyright their authors.
You'd have to get permission from all Usenet
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think there is general consensus that splitting stuff into separate
components, distributed separately, is not a valid way of bypassing
the GPL. If you distribute stuff whose only plausible purpose is to
Well, if it is separated and there is a public api
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:12:59PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think there is general consensus that splitting stuff into separate
components, distributed separately, is not a valid way of bypassing
the GPL. If you distribute stuff whose only
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
1)
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did you snip the rest of my explanation? As I said, that statement
is *not* a license. The DEC word list has no license.
The DEC word list has a license, which we do not know all of the
specifics about.
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did you snip the rest of my explanation? As I said, that statement
is *not* a license. The DEC word list has no license.
The DEC word list has a license, which we
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
- piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
- automatically removed all sequences of
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 05:30 pm, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
- piped the whole of Usenet through it for a
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 20:50, Derek Gladding wrote:
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 05:30 pm, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 01:12, Walter Landry wrote:
Similar arguments were made during the KDE-Qt mess. There weren't any
authors who were threatening anyone. I'm really not a big fan of
hoping someone doesn't sue. Debian does that for patents because it
wouldn't be able to function
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 17:11, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes, but do we then have any good-faith basis for assuming that one
can use the files in a commercial product (such as a Debian cd-rom
sold for profit) witout infringing anybody's copyright?
Whose copyright? And how would they prove it?
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 08:45, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Actually it is not that simple, libmysql/* is LGPL but mysqld_error.h
which is included by net.c is GPL.
That's silly. It's most likely an error. Can MySQL AB clarify it for
us?
I've been discussing this with the FSF's outside counsel, Dan Ravicher.
I have some ideas for how to generate a new word-list if we do end up
needing one, but I don't want to discuss them until I've talked with a
lawyer.
It looks like this license applies only to one of the word
34 matches
Mail list logo
