Hi
I would like to use (part of) this code in a KDE-application. The
licence-terms are in the file.
http://www.le.ac.uk/eg/spg3/lattice/Matrix3D.java
The important part is
* Sun grants you (Licensee) a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to use,
* modify and redistribute this software in
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Beyond that: if Adobe files in a CA court, even without this clause
a person is still going to have to deal with that situation somehow.
And if the action is specious, the person can simply dispute that
the license is relevant to the action.
The
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Carsten Niehaus wrote:
The important part is
* Sun grants you (Licensee) a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to use,
* modify and redistribute this software in source and binary code form,
* provided that i) this copyright notice and license appear on all copies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
While proprietary kernel modules are tolerated, there is no special
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, as you can see there is basically one problematic clause for
inclusion in Debian, and a few other minor issues that should probably
be resolved before font authors start using this license.
Are you sure the naming clause is really that problematic for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you're trying to prevent is clear, it's just not necessary to use
a license to do this. Consider the following: Debian decides to
distribute works containing your font. The original upstream
disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and Debian needs to fix
it. We
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here we have the most perfect example imaginable of a license being offered
by a copyright holder with a known and public history of hostility towards
information freedom, and people still don't acknowledge that there's a risk
here. It's flabbergasting!
The point is not
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:18:32 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
I think DFSG#5 was written not because of this, but because of
licenses that exclude some uses of the software, e.g. nuclear weapons
factories, animal torture and things that people dislike.
That is DFSG#6, not #5.
--
:-( This
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree
that California is an improper venue, you
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documents
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documents
should
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:04:44PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
It seems a clear test: if I can't distribute a changed version that
can be dropped into a system without changing other software,
it ain't free.
I'd take this just a little further, in that the user shouldn't have to
change his
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when
it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against
other
people.
It's
On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
While proprietary
One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin...
On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this
18 matches
Mail list logo
