-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I would like to know if TrueCrypt 6 would be accepted for non-free.
I know there have already been 2 threads about the TrueCrypt License:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00294.html
Hi all,
There's no real reason why the GPL itself would not be suitable. In
fact, in most cases, it's what you actually want, because having the
prefered form of modification for the images and audio avaiable is the
best thing to help make minor changes and bug fixes to artwork and/or
audio.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:50:51 +0200 Philipp Hübner wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if TrueCrypt 6 would be accepted for non-free.
I know there have already been 2 threads about the TrueCrypt License:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00294.html
Hello everybody,
At Debian we have recently stumbled upon a hidden[0] clause[1] in a source
code file included in PHP since php4. Since this clause is not free in terms
of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)[2] it prevents us (Debian) from
distributing the php interpreter.
I am thereby
Your message dated Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:56:58 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has caused the report #498621,
regarding PHP5 - ext/standard/rand.c is not dfsg conform
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
Hi Raphael,
You hereby have my permission to remove the clause referring to me, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Richard J. Wagner
On Sep 25, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Hello everybody,
At Debian we have recently stumbled upon a hidden[0] clause[1] in
a source
code file included in
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've had a better look at the GPL and it does seem quite suitable.
Thanks for progressing with this, and reporting your further thoughts
and questions.
As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
game. These are mostly
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant
of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3.
This would have a license grant something like:
This work is free
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does
not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If
it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly
useful.
I see it differently. What the GPLv2 means is
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea.
I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license
grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to
object code which was not
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maximilian Gaß [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These rights, on this notice, rely.
Is this meant to have some legal meaning? Or should we ignore it?
The poem is obviously a form of translation of a simple permisive license
11 matches
Mail list logo