On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 03:20:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first part only allows distribution for money if it's for use offline.
This forbids distribution for money over a network. Either makes
it non-free.
I think this is just like
, already does what (I think) you mean with the phrase
You may not charge for the OC itself in paragraph 1.
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
This is indeed the version I'm looking at.
Richard Braakman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As an example, I don't think the DFSG (taken literally) has room for the
GPL's requirements for distributing source code.
The only field of endeavor you could contrive to argue this point would
be one that would take
just
think that such use makes the software less free, and freedom of
software is what I care about.
Richard Braakman
.
Note that I changed your wording a bit. I think that for the purpose
of is far too permissive; the restrictions have to actually
accomplish their goal. Of course, this is hard to determine
objectively, so we have to use our collective judgement.
Richard Braakman
not conflict with the requirements the IPL
places on redistribution.
Richard Braakman
using any non-free parts?
Richard Braakman
under
this Agreement. If the licenses are compatible in the first place,
then nothing prevents a Contributor from offering it under both licenses.
Richard Braakman
.
The only problem might be if the original program distribution
contains code under a different license, or perhaps patent-encumbered
or export-hindered code, that we would rather leave out and not
distribute at all. With this license we don't have that option.
Richard Braakman
to it instead,
though, and then take responsibility for Debian's use and distribution
of the program. I do not think that would be wise.
Richard Braakman
, by the way. CD vendors
should not have to worry about what each author considers reasonable.
Richard Braakman
for XForms.
Too wordy?
Thanks to all of you!
Since there were no comments on this, can I consider the above
satisfactory?
Indeed. I can find no holes in it, even with nitpick mode set to ultra :)
Richard Braakman
good, though :)
Richard Braakman
Henning Makholm wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. Modified object or executable code must be accompanied by the
modified source code and/or documentation clearly stating the
modifications. Modified executables must be renamed to not
conflict
the
modifications. Modified executables must be renamed to not
conflict with the standard names.
The last sentence means that we cannot make bugfixes that remain
command-line compatible with the upstream version.
Richard Braakman
distribute. I think this instance does refer to distribution.
Distribute without charge is a normal phrase, as is License without
fee. Switch them around and it's not so normal anymore.
Richard Braakman
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
That won't work. The additional permission granted doesn't help us,
since we also distribute Qt itself.
1- read the rest of the email and you'll notice the further
change to:
Sorry, elm only showed me the first part because
non-free, since for example we wouldn't
be able to link it with a Qt that was modified to fix bugs. If you allow
more, how much more? This could easily open up a loophole in the GPL.
Perhaps you'd be better off with the MIT license in the first place.
Richard Braakman
Stephen Zander wrote:
Richard == Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the
JDK Version 1.1.x Internal Noncommercial Use Source License1 of 4
Nov 10, 1998
which I have signed states, in part
[...]
Thanks for the information, this clears up a lot.
Therefore
it. I see only two mails about the ldp-nag license
(prior to this exchange), and neither is from you. Can you repeat it?
Richard Braakman
. A blacklist.
Also... where can I see these lists? If they are not publically available,
then I can't even know if I'm complying with the license.
Richard Braakman
I've ever seen.
So if that is all he wants, an X-like license would be fine.
I bet that would attract more people than the QPL would.
The QPL is patches-only; I would certainly avoid any program
under that license.
Richard Braakman
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
Hmm. Patches are usually submitted under the same license as the
original work. I can't think of any exceptions I've ever seen.
So if that is all he wants, an X-like license would be fine.
That would allow him to do whatever he wanted
by Bart Vanhauwaert, 1998.
I think the second paragraph makes it non-DFSG-free.
Richard Braakman
at the top. Nothing about the social contract, and
no steps taken. I think you should investigate how many of your
views regarding RMS are based on things he actually said and did.
He's often misrepresented; everybody loves a strawman.
Richard Braakman
, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
If my work is not a derivative of the GPL'd work, under copyright law,
then that work's license has no bearing on mine.
Richard Braakman
independent, i.e. not derived from A). I agree with
Marcus that the text of the GPL does not affect this, except where
the GPL limits its own scope.
Richard Braakman
and pushed for just a little bit of realism
here.
Cites, please. I have never seen him propose this, and I have seen
none of these steps. You are misrepresenting him.
Richard Braakman
uses.
If you modify the DNSsafe software itself, you cannot modify its
documented API, [...]
Richard Braakman
(Sent to debian-legal, Cc to package maintainer)
I found this package in Incoming. I'm not sure if we can distribute
it; clause 4 is a bit funny. Also, it seems to permit distribution of
derived works BUT NOT verbatim copies (nontransferable license),
which is weird.
The mrouted program is
didn't say Open Source. He said open source, and it looks
to me like he was using both words in their natural meaning.
Richard Braakman
to this
one and if translated must be stated in a translation approuved by Mario
Motta.
I'd like to see the last sentence clarified. Do all translations
require approval? If not, what does it mean?
Richard Braakman
.
Richard Braakman
with
the Object Management Group's Internet Inter-ORB Protocol version
one. However, any uses other than the foregoing uses shall require
the express written consent of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
The entire copyright file is attached.
Richard Braakman
This package was debianized by Ossama Othman [EMAIL
201 - 234 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
