If you are unable to view the images in this email, please copy and paste the following url into your browser...
http://www.haestad.com/books/wdm_021105
Visit
http://www.haestad.com/comm_021105 to update communication preferences for
Hi Marcello,
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:06, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
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
This
Peter,
Thanks for message. I've forwarded your message to ilisp-devel for
their consideration as well as debian-legal. ILISP has been an
important part of Lisp development for many years, so it is essential
to clarify the issue completely.
Of course, I think it is the hope of all that ILISP's
Sorry, it must comply with the GPL now as it makes extensive use of GPL
code.
It is interesting that GNU ships ilisp on their CD:
http://www.gnu.org/order/source15.html
So GNU is okay with redistributing ILISP. I consider their opinion
important.
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`.
Kevin Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter,
Thanks for message. I've forwarded your message to ilisp-devel for
their consideration as well as debian-legal. ILISP has been an
important part of Lisp development for many years, so it is essential
to clarify the issue completely.
Of
Kevin Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, it must comply with the GPL now as it makes extensive use of GPL
code.
It is interesting that GNU ships ilisp on their CD:
http://www.gnu.org/order/source15.html
So GNU is okay with redistributing ILISP. I consider their opinion
the road. The best way to accomplish such a goal is to start off using
the GPL, assign copyright to the FSF (and sign the paperwork), and
accept patches only when the contributor is also willing to sign the
paperwork. It's tedious, but changing licenses later in the game is
difficult when
From: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Organization: Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:39:04 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:39:04 -0500
X-UIDL:
[debian-legal, I was doing audit of ITPs made this year for weird
licenses, or failure to note what license was being used altogether. I
asked Mr. Rosenberg about #161007.]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:31:50PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Hi Brandon,
(It's Branden, BTW.)
It's a typo -- it
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LLGPL doesn't look like a problem from a DFSG standpoint to me. Its
real effect appears to be a liberalization of the copyleft in the LGPL
(Since Lisp only offers one choice, which is to link the Library into
an executable at build time, we
Branden Robinson wrote:
I'm going to raise this license on the debian-legal mailing list just to
get some second opinions on it and otherwise get the -legal list
familiar with it, because I don't recall having seen it mentioned there
before. (Or maybe I just missed it.)
I am not sure the
Kevin Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
;;; following conditions are met:
;;; o distribution of a modification to the Software have been
;;;previously submitted to the maintainers; if the maintainers
;;;decide not to include the submitted
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 02:22, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:33:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My suggestion is that you ask the FSF for their more detailed advice.
What contact address is best for this
Walter Landry wrote:
This is the problem. What if the people making a change can not
contact the original author, because they live somewhere without
internet access? If I make a modification, before I can give it to my
friend across the street, I have to contact the original authors. And
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 04:12:07PM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
Hi Marcello,
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:06, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
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
[My apologies for the broad CC; I don't know who is subscribed to which
lists, but I'm subscribed to debian-legal, so if you reply to
debian-legal, I'll see it.]
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:39:56AM -0700, Larry Hunter wrote:
I'm one ILISP developer who has no problem with GPL'ing ILISP.
I
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:44:43PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
;;; following conditions are met:
;;; o distribution of a modification to the Software have been
;;;previously submitted to the maintainers; if the maintainers
;;;decide not
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:44:43PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Also, is the requirement to change the name also non-DFSG compatible?
I forgot to answer this point.
There has been some debate recently over *precisely* what DFSG 4 means
(see the archives of debian-legal regarding the LaTeX
Branden Robinson wrote:
This shouldn't be a problem. A good-faith effort should be sufficient;
you can then proceed with a good-faith assumption that the change is not
problematic.
Thanks very much for your insights, Branden!
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
19 matches
Mail list logo
