Hi,
[Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
Quoting debian/copyright:
IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by Michael Sandrof. You have the
right to copy, compile, and maintain this
Steve Langasek said:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The argument is that //rmi.bar.com/Bar is a GPL'd program, and this
java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
Giving away
CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose
you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask
them to give the latter back to you.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Hi,
[Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
Quoting debian/copyright:
IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by Michael
Hi!
Here is some combination of the Chinese Dissident and Fred the Lawyer
tests.
Consider the following situation. There is a program written in
Europe. Someone in USA (say, Fred the USA dissident:-) takes this
program and incorporates some form of encryption which is illegal to
export from USA.
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 12:46, Simon Law wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
[..]
Reading the source (source/irc.c):
[...]
* Written By Michael Sandrof
* Copyright(c) 1990
* See the COPYRIGHT file, or do a HELP IRCII COPYRIGHT
[...]
I can't
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html
Michael Sandrof, Troy Rollo, and Matthew Green are putting the ircII code
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It doesn't appear that we have the right to redistribute the
Sandrof code.
[...]
I highly recommend that you file a bug requesting the removal of
this package.
No. Check the other ircii-based packages; Michael retro-actively
re-licensed his
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:26, Simon Law wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Hi,
[Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
Quoting
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html
Michael Sandrof, Troy
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:17, Simon Law wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:01:35PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall.
The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so
they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oops, I confused myself. This phrase all third parties that receive
copies indirectly through the recipient is still there.
Could you state again what problem you have with that
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the
software, access to the source code for the software
No, this misstates my position. Possessors of the
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, what if I played it through my web server? I don't give you
the DVD and I don't let you access the menu directly, so I am not
distributing the work through the web, I'm just playing a video
using some streaming video format. Now that is clearly
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the
software, access to the source code for the software
No, this
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a
problem, even if you object to all
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
[1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I presume this was like Solaris's
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:48:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think we have two sorts of free licenses. One set, which includes BSD
and GPL licenses, which basically give users and authors the same rights;
and the other set, which includes the QPL and licenses with patch clauses,
which give
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to be good enough for
Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that they used when
making that decision will be persuasive to other users of the QPL.
The licensing of the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
HOWEVER, I find it worrying that the legal venue is stated as
| This license is governed by the Laws of the State of Texas and any
| disputes shall be decided by mediation.
Does this mean that the user has to submit to some
Package: whois
Version: 4.6.2
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient. Neither
is the debian/copyright file. Since the maintainer is also the upstream
author, I presume that he actually _does_ want to license whois under
the GNU GPL. I have
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
[1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
to declare
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective
way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our deprecation of such
licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating
the spirit of
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the Software without restriction,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
You do need
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he
didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer
to the legal scope of copyright law.
Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well
equiped to
29 matches
Mail list logo
