Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Ah yes, you're right. I was confusing it with gnutar, which was named
for John
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
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
This came up in a local LUG ML I participate in ( http://www.sgvlug.org )
recently:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, No way!, but
I see the other guy's point ...
Section 0, says in part:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:01 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified
software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, No
way!, but
I see the other guy's point ...
Iff the law were to allow such
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:01:52PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
Does section 6 guarantee that the usage right is kept, or is it somehow
guaranteed in law, or is there another section which addresses this (I've
looked of course, but didn't see anything that seems to do it).
Hmm. Thinking
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
here is the *non-interesting* one?
Well, it's the one that matters. You want
I was thinking on packaging honeyd [1] a small daemon to simulate servers
and create a virtual honeynet. I'm, however, not completely sure the license
is DFSG-free.
License follows:
/*
* Copyright 2002 Niels Provos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source
Sorry for replying to myself, but the following from the FAQ:
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 gnuplot
freely. Please read and accept
[CCs are welcome]
What about the license for w.agora?
http://www.w-agora.com/en/license.php
---
The w-agora license
Copyright (c) 2000 Marc Druilhe. All rights reserved.
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
here is the *non-interesting* one?
Well, it's
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:15:49PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
I was thinking on packaging honeyd [1] a small daemon to simulate servers
and create a virtual honeynet. I'm, however, not completely sure the license
is DFSG-free.
[ Old 4-clause BSD license ]
I'm ok with 1, 2
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm ok with 1, 2 and 4. But 3 (and advertisement clause) I'm not
sure about. I've searched the list but havent't found any
information on wether advertisement clauses are ok or not. The
latest license mentioning an advertisement clause
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:56 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't remove my right to sign a contract promising not to do
something, and I believe this is a commonplace and legitimate--if
annoying--practice that the GPL supports: companies can have employees
sign NDAs, preventing
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for relevance to Debian, can one assume that the GPL absolutely
guarantees
DFSG free? (As I'm pretty sure the DFSG *does* guarantee me this
right).
No. Patents can get in your way. We have GPL software (e.g.,
gimp-nonfree, due to Unisys patents
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So that there is no way to evade the GPL by doing things that
happen to be individually OK, and in sum, just happen to get around
the license. They only way to do this is if it is
Scripsit Christian Surchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
The w-agora license
Copyright (c) 2000 Marc Druilhe. All rights reserved.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:07:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
MEANWHILE: The Danish communications engineer Dennis Damm realizes
that efficient polynomial factorization can be used for an elegant
analysis of network choke points. He quickly writes a prototype
iplementation in AngstRom
19 matches
Mail list logo
