On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 23:23, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must
hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I
will buy as a violation of DFSG 5; I
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 02:31:53AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
However, clause 6 says it only takes effect when distributed, which is
kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
distribution at all?
I'm not
Scripsit Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, clause 6 says it only takes effect when distributed, which is
kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
distribution at all?
It's not hard to come up with a
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the license of gnuplot compatible with the DFSG ?
Yes. See DFSG#4. And gnuplot is in Debian main.
OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
the GNU tool for the job.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we go by your interpretation, then any self-contained GPL executable
(for example, a flash image for an embedded linux system) can be
distributed without source code.
A GPL-d program in which the original is not source code is
incoherent. Section
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What establishes cahoots? Well, basically, anyone who did any of
the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
process. This is similar to conspiracy law, where
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What establishes cahoots? Well, basically, anyone who did any of
the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
I'm intending to package PyDDR (http://www.clickass.org/~tgz/pyddr), a
Dance Dance Revolution simulator for UNIX systems. The basic idea behind
DDR is that you have a pattern of button presses (which you press with
your feet, hence dancing) which you do in rhythm with music.
PyDDR at the moment
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:05, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I'm intending to package PyDDR (http://www.clickass.org/~tgz/pyddr), a
Dance Dance Revolution simulator for UNIX systems. The basic idea behind
DDR is that you have a pattern of button presses (which you press with
your feet, hence dancing)
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 09:23, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
with such a license.
Well, what *is* the GNU tool for the job? AFAIK there isn't one.
(FWIW,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to
tell that my original different people scenario was meant as a
situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is
something they do because it makes sense in itself
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think being forced to actively send changes (or changelogs) upstream
is any different than having to produce source on demand; both discriminate
against people who *can't* publically release changes, such as people under
NDA.
The NDA is a weak
Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the license of gnuplot compatible with the DFSG ?
Yes.
Gnuplot is freeware in the sense that you don't have to pay for
it. However it is not freeware in the sense that you would be allowed
to distribute a modified version of your
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
with such a license.
gnuplot predates the GNU project.
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone
who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing,
even if their piece, in isolation, would not be.
What must I say to communicate the message that the case you
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
gnuplot predates the GNU project.
The earliest copyright date in any of the gnuplot 3.7.1 source files
is 1986; gnuplot 1.0.3 was relased November 16/17 that year in a series
of postings to net.sources.
The only mention of any year between 1980
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:01:07PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 09:23, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
with such a license.
Well,
Title: TugaMail.com
Registo | Ajuda | Contacto | Privacidade | Condições de
utilização
19 matches
Mail list logo
