[This is so utterly -legal's territory. It's going over there]
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:41:23PM +1100, George Dekavalas wrote:
Today I received this email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], so lets hope this helps
[...]
We definitely want to work with the Debian project such that Debian
includes a
Marek Habersack wrote, among other interesting stuff:
[T]he thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the
Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make
cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG.
Huh? I see no such clauses[1], unless you're
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:13:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
[This is so utterly -legal's territory. It's going over there]
And what's more, we just *had* this discussion in the past couple of
days. It's even part of the same thread.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:41:23PM +1100, George
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free
(and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright
holder). That's all there is to it. I can't imagine why Mozilla would
want to forbid this, other than a total
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:16:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend
for (mostly-)non-program files?
Branden Robinson:
I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't
really say MIT/X11 any more.
Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license?
I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or
2-clause BSD anymore; MIT/X11 seems to imply
Hello!
First of all, I would like to ask you to Cc: me to replies, as I am not
subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance!
Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim
made by nmap developers [1]:
in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's
rights
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden Robinson:
I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't
really say MIT/X11 any more.
Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license?
I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or
XFree86 !=
Birzan George Cristian wrote:
Now, my questions for you are:
1) Is nmap's licence GPL, or by adding that mention, they created a new
licence?
One: nmap's license is GPL. the mention you talked about is just a
warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is
terminated, in
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or
2-clause BSD anymore; MIT/X11 seems to imply that. I agree. MIT/X
would be ok, as in the MIT version of the X system license ugh. MIT is
better (and shorter).
I would be leery of
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free
(and require explicit permission to do the latter from the copyright
holder). That's all there is to it. I
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:11:40PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
In Fyodor's opinion, SCO violated some (yet unknown?) terms of the GPL
Yet unknown? Isn't this the same thing SCO is doing, spreading FUD about
how Linux violated their IP?
license in his works (nmap). He is telling them their
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:54:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:16:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The next question is, which
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead
will use the X-Oz license. Same problem that we have with the BSD
licenses.
Wouldn't it be nice to not call people fuckheads just because their
choice of license doesn't please you?
--
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 08:00, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead
will use the X-Oz license.
It's like ... too subtle. You know?
zen
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We consider the former to be DFSG-free and the latter to be non-free
(and require explicit permission to do the latter from the
Subversion has some clauses in its license that seemed very questionable to
me. Here they are for your convenience:
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes
software developed by CollabNet
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:01:42PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
As a consequence of the above, even if we did have a copyright license
to modify the icon or the bitmap of
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote:
Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim
made by nmap developers [1]:
in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's
rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of
19 matches
Mail list logo
