Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation >> >> package

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation > >> package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the co

Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:51:47PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > Dear Mr. Koch and Dr. Treindl, [snip] > regarded as the gold standard of Free/Open Source software. While the > Swiss Ephemeris Public License seems to meet our requirements, there are a > few places which are a little unclear an

Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux

Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: Dear Mr. Koch and Dr. Treindl, First of all let me thank you for your Swiss Ephemeris software. I have found it to be very useful in the calculation of Hindu Calendars. I am writing to you because I am one of the volunteer maintainers of the Debian GNU/Linux operating sy

Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux

Dear Mr. Koch and Dr. Treindl, First of all let me thank you for your Swiss Ephemeris software. I have found it to be very useful in the calculation of Hindu Calendars. I am writing to you because I am one of the volunteer maintainers of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (http://www.debian.o

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation >> package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright >> holder, she distributes them together. Nobo

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribute this as a single int

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Mark Pilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Doug Winter wrote: >> On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote: >> >>>Here is what I would like to do: >>> >>>1. Give away my book for free. >>>2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free. >>>3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free. >>

Re: european data grid

On 2003-10-13 16:46:41 +0100 A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interesting. It seems to be an "old BSD" style licence, with some clauses combined and the following addition: 4. You are under no obligation to provide anyone with a

Re: european data grid

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:46:41PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > hi > > I think that the following license is free (according to DFSG) > > http://eu-datagrid.web.cern.ch/eu-datagrid > /license.html >

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Doug Winter wrote: On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote: Here is what I would like to do: 1. Give away my book for free. 2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free. 3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free. 4. Allow Apress to publish the book commercially. 5. Put the bo

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote: > Here is what I would like to do: > > 1. Give away my book for free. > 2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free. > 3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free. > 4. Allow Apress to publish the book commercially. > 5. Put the book in Deb

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Brian T. Sniffen said: > The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires > either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three > years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book > under the GPL, with the special exception that printed copie

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

On 2003-10-13, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: > >> Alternatively, you could provide the publisher with a written offer to >> provide the source, which they could then print in the back of the >> book (without providing any

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: > Alternatively, you could provide the publisher with a written offer to > provide the source, which they could then print in the back of the > book (without providing anything themselves). That only works under the stock GPL if the

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

On 2003-10-13, Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires > either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three > years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book > under the GPL, with the

european data grid

hi I think that the following license is free (according to DFSG) http://eu-datagrid.web.cern.ch/eu-datagrid /license.html but I would like your opinion on that. a.

Re: System V Code removed from XFS

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:16:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 09:24:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > The problem with this argument is, of course, that the code isn't > > non-free; "it appears that most or all of the System V code fragments we > > found had pr

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

"Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: >> > I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This >> > accomplishes your goals, and it is une

Re: Swiss Ephemeris Public License

Op vr 10-10-2003, om 23:10 schreef Henning Makholm: > > This license file and the copyright notices in the source files are the > > only places where the author's names may legally appear without specific > > prior written permission. > > Hm - I wonder whether, if this is enforceable at all, it ca

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If you feel that the GPL needs clarification for the term 'object code', add > a specific notice stating what forms you consider to be object code (not > source code) in your interpretation. But make sure this "clarification" functions as an additional pr

Re: zlib license

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 09:47:11PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > It's very short license. It could be reached at: > http://cvs.icculus.org/horde/chora/co.php/LICENSE?rt=physfs&r=1.2 Just for grins, here's the text: This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied war

Re: System V Code removed from XFS

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 09:24:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > The problem with this argument is, of course, that the code isn't > non-free; "it appears that most or all of the System V code fragments we > found had previously been placed in the public domain." > > Sorry, couldn't resist. D