On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:09:31PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
Paul Hampson wrote:
Copyright Act 1968 Section 31:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
I'm not at all sure that copyright works the same in all countries. I
suppose the related international
Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 22:30, David Turner ha scritto:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
sorry for my ignorance but therefore ? if it is in public domain i can
use it to pack for debian under
Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 18:11, Mark Rafn ha scritto:
ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the
About Box (Help-About ImageJ) if you add a license.
I'd modify the file that contains the above comment to include the fact
that the author has since declared it
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
Debian to distribute packaged binaries
On Thu 30 Jan Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that
whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such
beasts really exist?
http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
^^
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
highlighted.
Um, but what is the appropriate GPL
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:03:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I disagree with the suggestion that the author could be made to
realize this merly by mailing him the text of the GPL with a few
passages underlined but no further explanation.
No argument there.
--
Glenn Maynard
Hi all
I'm cross-posting d-legal mod_ldap author John Morrissey.
If someone would add something about this issue, please
add John in Cc.
John:
We in Debian need some clarifications about your current license
for mod_ldap. We need minimally to move proftpd-ldap in non-free
section when 1.2.7
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:24:44AM +0100, Paolo Ariano wrote:
Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 22:30, David Turner ha scritto:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
sorry for my ignorance but therefore ?
Il ven, 2003-01-31 alle 16:22, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
Public domain means that *none* of the rights associated with copyright
are reserved. It can go in main.
ok but the problem is that he asks for changes:
/*
* ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
* with this
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
I'm saying that you seem to be confused by the word. You're analyzing
its etymology and deriving its meaning and properties based on that.
This is the wrong way to analyze a legal term. Instead, you should be
looking at how it
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 04:30:40PM +0100, Paolo Ariano wrote:
Il ven, 2003-01-31 alle 16:22, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
Public domain means that *none* of the rights associated with copyright
are reserved. It can go in main.
ok but the problem is that he asks for changes:
If the work is
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:59:37PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
We in Debian need some clarifications about your current license
for mod_ldap. We need minimally to move proftpd-ldap in non-free
section when 1.2.7 will be uploaded. But this is not a problem of
yours surely :). Your
Being unable to not fix security issues in a timely manner is a Bad
Thing. We should not support, endorse or otherwise support such
software. Not even in non-free (which is not part of Debian proper).
Just in case there's some confusion about the type of package, I believe root
is a C++
Il ven, 2003-01-31 alle 16:36, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
If the work is truly in the public domain, then this request has no legal
force. It is not a license, because the author does not hold a copyright
and has no authority to stop you from using it if you don't agree to
these terms.
ok
On 31-Jan-03, 03:24 (CST), Paolo Ariano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 22:30, David Turner ha scritto:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
sorry for my ignorance but
On 31-Jan-03, 10:17 (CST), Craig P Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having this package in Debian would be a tremendous asset.
I think that ROOT's license is acceptable for non-free. Whether
it's wise to add it is up to you, the maintainer, and the users. In
particular, if I were considering
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
Debian to distribute packaged binaries
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:30:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
Well... public domain in the USA. This has come up on debian-legal
before, but I can't find it
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the work is truly in the public domain, then this request has no legal
force. It is not a license, because the author does not hold a copyright
and has no authority to stop you from using it if you don't agree to
these terms.
That's why I'm
Scripsit Craig P Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's an analysis package, analagous to Gnuplot. I don't think that
it does any network stuff at all, so I don't think that security is
an issue.
Security is always an issue. If it's found out, for example, that the
program has a buffer overflow that
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:51, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:30:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
Well... public domain in the USA. This
Philip == Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round
and round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and
overusing cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:34:13AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
I'm saying that you seem to be confused by the word. You're analyzing
its etymology and deriving its meaning and properties based on that.
This is the wrong way
On Friday 31 January 2003 22:13, Paul Hampson wrote:
To me a right (as compared to a privelege) is something you can do,
and no-one can take that away from you.
This would make a persons's set of rights empty.
Lynn
27 matches
Mail list logo
