On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 01:54:13PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
I seriously believe that Debian should follow pine license strictly
and not accept any special permission only for Debian.
This is written in the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and I believe
it's a guideline we should follow
Hi guys,
please keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc:
I'm seeking the opinion of -legal regarding an issue I've been
discussing on another mailing list. It pertains the YAST license as
found in:
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast
To make this clear from the start:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 04:41:04PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Andrea Borgia wrote:
Does anyone know of some free software that walks like Pine, talks like Pine
and looks like Pine but in fact is not Pine? (something like nano instead of
pico, mutt-fans please hands off the keyboard)
GNU
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Is there any way for xmedcon to become official without taking those parts
mentioned above out of the source code (which neither the upstream author
nor
me would find very attractive).
Nope. We cannot distribute software that doesn't have a
Hello, ...
I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
discussed here previously, and have one last question.
To recapitulate, upstream is packaging a pci adsl modem driver, which
use a software library to do the ADSL decoding. They don't have the
source to this library
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:42:12AM +, Jules Bean wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:27:15AM +0100, Radovan Garabik wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 08:49:21PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
It depends on spectrum-roms and must therefore go in contrib.
We had a discussion abour ZX ROMS some
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:37:59AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Hm, it seems that we're actually a surprisingly large part of the way to
being DFSG-free here. There are two stumbling blocks:
* There's no explicit permission to distribute as part of things that
aren't emulators. This is
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:54:43PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hm, it seems that we're actually a surprisingly large part of the way to
being DFSG-free here. There are two stumbling blocks:
* There's no explicit permission to distribute as part of
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You forgot to mention:
* The lack of source.
That can probably be worked around:
As I said elsewhere, they can't make it available, because they no
longer have it (um, I can't seem to find where I read that, so I might
Sorry, I didn't realise
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:15:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
discussed here previously, and have one last question.
To recapitulate, upstream is packaging a pci adsl modem driver, which
use a software library to do the ADSL
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:32:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:15:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
discussed here previously, and have one last question.
To recapitulate, upstream is packaging
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:38:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is
non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code
will be distributed together, this can be uploaded to non-free. Note
that being able to
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:02:03AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:38:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is
non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code
will be distributed
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What would be needed for the proprietary part ? A licence stating that
it is ok to distribute it and link it with the GPLed driver ? Would that
be enough ?
Permission to redistribute both the .o files, and binary kernel
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the
redistribution rights of the proprietary .o nonethless.
If the exemption
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:32:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:16:20AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:32:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's outrageous. UWash was going to sue the FSF for infringment of an
BSD-style license when it's plainly obvious that no infringement was
taking place?
No, they argued that there was infringement.
Oh, I remember this. The sophists at UWash
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:25AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about
the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but
there it is. They didn't create the distinction, they just decided to
use it.
So the BSD
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:25AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about
the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but
there it is. They
I saw recently that there was a problem with OpenOffice having LZW
patented code in its source. I imagine this kind or similar problems have
effected other packages.
There has been an interesting thread on the comp.compression newsgroup
that I have been watching. I've been waiting to see if more
On Monday 11 November 2002 11:02 am, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Fortunately, the lzw patent expires this coming June.
Is that true? That would be really nice! (Finally, I can support buggy
old browsers in my web application). No sarcasm -- lots of people are still
using them, and I'd like to
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:25AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about
the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but
there it is. They didn't create the
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 14:45, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Oh, I remember this. The sophists at UWash claim that:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee to the
25 matches
Mail list logo
