Hi!
On Thursday 05 December 2002 14:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
and the law explicitly permits redistribution
of a particular copy once it has been sold or given to someone
with the permission of the author.
Same thing applies to the German Authors Rights Law.
Sloppy translation:
| ยง17 [...]
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
I throw away the source CD and then start selling the binary discs
from my retail store. My poor customers will be left with binaries and
no way to get source, much contrary to the intentions behind
licenses are appropriate for hardware releases?
After interesting discussion on and off debian-legal, I'm now down to a
choice of one hardware license for everything except the firmware which
will be GPL'd. The hardware license is probably the OHGPL
http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.html with clause
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.shtml.
The OpenIPCore license is a more of a copyleft, so you'll
On Wednesday 04 December 2002 06:28 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
After interesting discussion on and off debian-legal, I'm now down to a
choice of one hardware license for everything except the firmware which
will be GPL'd. The hardware license is probably the OHGPL
http://www.opencores.org/OIPC
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
non-free circuit. This is like creating a non-free
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
On Monday 02 December 2002 12:04 pm, Walter Landry wrote:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The LART license is probably required reading on this subject ;-)
http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/LICENSE
This is pretty much the same as the BSD license.
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi
Yes; I'm currently looking at that and the OpenIPCore
license.
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Umm; the .sch and .pcb files are not really source code; they are more
like .pdf files. Also, I'm using a GPL rather than BSD license for the
traditional philosophical reasons: this is an addition to
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 01:59 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software,
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Umm; the .sch and .pcb files are not really source code; they are more
like .pdf files. Also, I'm using a GPL rather than BSD license for the
traditional philosophical reasons: this is an addition to the commons,
rather than a gift to the
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
files for pcb, .sch files for gschem, and .asm
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
files for pcb, .sch files for gschem,
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 01:59 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
files for pcb, .sch files
Hi,
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
files for pcb, .sch files for gschem, and .asm files for the PIC
firmware. What
17 matches
Mail list logo
