Just to clarify the context of my previous message, in November Pierre
from the Pear Group reported[1] that the PHP License was modified to
address the most severe of our concerns about its freeness. The
resultant license, unlike the previous version, appears to at least
apply equally to PHP and ot
Josh Triplett wrote:
Marco Franzen wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Mickael Profeta wrote:
If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself
^^^
licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
dated June 1991 ("GPL v2") or compatible, then you may us
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Marco Franzen wrote:
What if I don't want to link it? I may want to
- just publish (parts of) the source code (or (of) a modified version)
- modify it into something that isn't a library and publish the source
- paste code fragments into an embedded/free-
On 1/5/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> > I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> > the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
>
> It's reasona
On 1/5/06, Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
> > But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
> > the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pret
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
> But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
> the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
> (antitrust violation -> copyright misuse -> qua
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
Marco Franzen wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Mickael Profeta wrote:
>>> If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself
> ^^^
>>> licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
>>> dated June 1991 ("GPL v2") or compatible, then you may use Libpre
I just wanted to make sure that all relevant RC bugs were aware of the
following debian-legal post by MJ Ray:
"The PHP licence could be OK for any software which has PHP Group
contribution (regardless who is licensing later), but would require
lying about other software. So, it is possib
> Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch
> conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January.
I'll be there as well and will be happy to represent and communicate
Debian's questions and comments as well. :)
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Given this, I would like to once again suggest that the Pear Group
> > consider removing the PHP License from their list of accepted licenses.
> > As previously discussed, existing projects may take time to be
> > relicensed, but I see no reason to allow new Pear projects to use the
> > PHP Lic
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:50:04PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Well, you can always make exceptions to the GPL (like the
> exception in the eCos license). And publicly saying "I believe
Exceptions remove restrictions, not add them. It's saying, "the
work is under the GPL; and you also have
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:18:15AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > They may be worried about whether dynamic linking against their
> > software creates a derivative work. With that language, they try to
> > take away that worry.
>
> But they can't do that (at least not i
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Marco Franzen wrote:
> What if I don't want to link it? I may want to
> - just publish (parts of) the source code (or (of) a modified version)
> - modify it into something that isn't a library and publish the source
> - paste code fragments into an embedded/free-standing applica
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation -> copyright misuse -> quasi public domain/copyright
impotenc
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:18:15AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Why on earth do they not just license it as GPL straight away? That
> > would not prevent them from offering other license terms in addition
> > for a fee (or without one) as they see fit.
>
> They may
Howdy legal mavens,
Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference[1] in
Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January.
Because the text of the first public draft is being held back until the
actual conference, there is as yet nothing to review. (If there are
pre-release d
Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Why on earth do they not just license it as GPL straight away? That
>> would not prevent them from offering other license terms in addition
>> for a fee (or without one) as they see fit.
> They may be worried about whether
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:08:23PM +0100,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> > I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> > the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
>
> Not if you want it to be part of Debian.
It still
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:34:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > It saves *so* much trouble.
>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
Not
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Why on earth do they not just license it as GPL straight away? That
> would not prevent them from offering other license terms in addition
> for a fee (or without one) as they see fit.
They may be worried about whether dynamic linking against their
software creates a deriv
Scripsit Mickael Profeta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself
> licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
> dated June 1991 ("GPL v2") or compatible, then you may use LibpreludeDB
> under the terms of the GPL v2,as appe
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:17:24PM -0500,
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that licensing the
> documentation under the exact same license as the program was always
> the right thing to do.
I agree.
23 matches
Mail list logo
