Hi all,
I'm thinking about building a package for RtMidi [1], as I'm
developing a package of a software that embeds it, and already found
some other packages in the archive doing it. I'm not very keen on
having duplicated code around. In any case, the license [2], a custom
licensed based on MIT,
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:51:28 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Miriam!
I'm thinking about building a package for RtMidi [1], as I'm
developing a package of a software that embeds it, and already found
some other packages in the archive doing it. I'm not very keen on
having duplicated
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Especially this part: Any person wishing to distribute modifications
to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original
developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical
version., can it be considered DFSG-free?
It looks like a request not a
Hi Josselin,
On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:00:13 +0200
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be
fine for Debian.
Okay, thanks for your comment, I'll put it into main :)
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane henrich @
Hello, Dmitrijs!
You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:58:04 +0100:
2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 ? 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a ?crit :
ÿI've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package.
ÿYou can see its license at
In message 1243789213.18376.224.ca...@tomoyo, Josselin Mouette
j...@debian.org writes
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit :
I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package.
You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html
Please give me your
Hi,
I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package.
Its license, IPA Font License is OSI approved, but it doesn't mean
equal to DFSG-Free. So, I'd like to ask you it is DFSG-Free or not.
It is TeX-like license and has some restriction for use its name for
derivatives and how to deal with
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit :
I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package.
You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html
Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks.
The only things that looks suspicious are the
2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a écrit :
I've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package.
You can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html
Please give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks.
The
Dear list members,
I am working on packaging a library for Debian. The library uses the
Simple Library Usage License [1]. The license is based on the
wxWindows Library Licence [2]. But there are differences in the
exception notice (point 2).
Is the license DFSG-free
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 03:35:02PM +0100, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
---
Simple Library Usage License
Version 1, Nov 6 2005
Copyright (c) 2005 Gordon Kindlmann
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 01:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
The whole license is CPL-based.
Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
I have to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
The whole license is CPL-based.
Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
I have to disagree.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a detailed license
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:52:46PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the
software. IIRC this was already declared non-free.
Comments from other on this? /me hoping your memory is faulty
* Josselin Mouette:
8. GENERAL
If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with
respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or
counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that
Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
The whole license is CPL-based.
Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The whole license is CPL-based.
Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
Many thanks guys then!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%-
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 12:06 -0400, Joe Smith a écrit :
I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no
jury for the trial?
All this means is that should a trial arise, neither side will request a
jury to decide
the questions of Fact. If no jury is requested,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:52:46PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Short summary, two potential freeness issues:
* the contributor indemnification clause,
* the patent retaliation clause.
Thanks Josselin and Ben for the replies so far.
This clause is really borderline. It could be
[ please cc-me on replies, I'm not subscribed, thanks! ]
Hi guys,
I'm considering packaging Galax [1], which is licensed under the terms
of the Lucent Public License Version 1.0 [2]. Is that license
considered DFSG-free?
AFAICT it is DFSG-free. Besides it is also OSI approved (though I
haven't
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ please cc-me on replies, I'm not subscribed, thanks! ]
Done.
Hi guys, I'm considering packaging Galax [1], which is licensed
under the terms of the Lucent Public License Version 1.0 [2]. Is
that license considered DFSG-free?
Unlike the OSI, we
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ please cc-me on replies, I'm not subscribed, thanks! ]
Done.
=
Lucent Public License Version 1.0
...
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
a.Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
grants
Short summary, two potential freeness issues:
* the contributor indemnification clause,
* the patent retaliation clause.
Le vendredi 21 septembre 2007 à 00:03 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
This section is OK.
3. REQUIREMENTS
B. Each Distributor must include
Hi,
I'm packaging luabind for debian but I have a license with the
doc/luabind-logo-label.ps : in the comments of this file we can see :
%--
%
% Copyright (C) 1998-2000. All rights reserved.
% Graphic design by Alexandre
On 5/7/07, Arthur Loiret [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% * The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to
% your product name.
%
% * The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative
proportions
% of its elements are maintained.
Non-free.
--
Andrew Donnellan
Arthur Loiret [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
% Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license
% or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose,
% including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
[...]
% * The only
Thanks a lot all, I'm going to remove this file from the package now.
Have a nice day, Arthur.
Le lundi 07 mai 2007 à 17:28 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Arthur Loiret [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
% Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without
license
% or royalty
Francesco == Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francesco What you posted is the 3-clause BSD license (just with
Francesco the name of the copyright holder substituted, compare
Francesco with /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD). It's perfectly
Francesco fine (software released
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:40:11 +0100 Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
[...]
Actually, could be possible to add this package to main ?
If
* the package is entirely released solely under the license you posted
* the package's source code is available
* there are no other legal issues (such as actively
Hello,
With this kind of license, all the GPL'ed software that using this API
(for instance pam-bioapi which is using bioapi) should have :
Specific permission is granted for the GPLed code in this distribition
to be linked to BioAPI without invoking GPL clause 2(b).
in the copyright file in
Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
With this kind of license, all the GPL'ed software that using this API
(for instance pam-bioapi which is using bioapi) should have :
Specific permission is granted for the GPLed code in this distribition
to be linked to BioAPI without invoking GPL clause 2(b).
in
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:31:05 +0100 Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if the license below is DFSG free, i have some
doubt about that and i would like to know in order to do the ITP on
bioapi framework.
What you posted is the 3-clause BSD license (just with the name of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello good people--
I'm considering ITP'ing CIAO [0], but before i look into it further, i
wanted to get this community's advice on its freeness. I wasn't able
to find any prior discussion of CIAO within debian, but if i missed
something, please let
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:54:58 -0500 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
[...]
Hello good people--
Hi! :)
I'm considering ITP'ing CIAO [0], but before i look into it further, i
wanted to get this community's advice on its freeness.
Good.
[...]
The only other debian reference to this license i've
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:24:55 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
(For what it's worth, I value being able to be anonymous, but don't
actually want to *be* anonymous. That is, I attach my name to what I
say and create; I hold people who post and code anonymously in
question--do they consider what
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if the
Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way
too verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require such a
limited changelog would be provide a notice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:15:06AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But the two have substantially different meenings... like, seriously
substantial. Use is not a well defined term in the Copyright statute and
control of use is generally accepted to be beyond the exclusive rights
granted under
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Given that we are all concerned about copyrights and having proof that the
code is free and not ripped off from SCO or whoever, identification seems to
be a worthy goal of free software, which must be
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:17:38PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 01:43 pm, David Starner wrote:
It is discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an
individual or group, like you cannot use this software if you are
black or you cannot use this software if you are the military.
But not you cannot use this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A
group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court
says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination.
The law itself is facially neutral and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A
group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court
says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination.
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 07:41 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination.
A group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the
Court says that while it
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:59:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:57 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable interpretation
of DFSG 5. Why should you exclude from the Free Software process
people
* Sean Kellogg ::
On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that
you feel hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the
tests are commonly used.
* Sean Kellogg ::
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political
science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a
self-appointed group of various legal, political, an
* Marco ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the
software may not have internet access for emailing the changes.
(Think perhaps a developing nation.)
I still do not believe that this is discrimination against
persons or groups. This is an
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 19:12 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
The Initial Developer will be acting as the
maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
Initial Developer of any modification which You create
or to which You contribute, [...]
This goes against the Freedom 3 of the
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 14:09 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of
various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive
policy decisions based on thin air?
Pretty much, yes. The decision-making power eventually lies with
ftp-masters, but AFAIK
* Marco ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still do not believe that this is discrimination against
persons or groups. This is an unreasonable interpretation of
the original meaning of DFSG.5.
I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable
interpretation of DFSG 5. Why should you
* Sean Kellogg ::
On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any
change. Doesn't this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the software may not
have internet access for emailing the changes. (Think perhaps a developing
nation.)
I still do not believe that this is discrimination against persons or
groups. This is an unreasonable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are
commonly used.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
You do not understand correctly. This FAQ is merely the opinion of a few
debian-legal contributors, is not widely accepted and is by no
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The choice-of-venue makes it *non-free*.
There is no consensus about this, many people have no complaints about
choice of venue.
..and there I was thinking that we needed consensus to say that
something is free, too.
I consider
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science=20
perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of=
You have written self-appointed. That is incorrect. debian-legal
is not a delegated or appointed post.
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that's certainly a great deal better, structurally. I guess I've nev=
er=20
really seen any ftp-master discussion on this list... but then again, I=20
don't know their names, so I wouldn't really know who was who. But at leas=
t=20
there is some
On Sunday 12 June 2005 12:19 am, Wei Mingzhi wrote:
A free software license should not require any
modifications to be submitted to the initial
developer. This doesn't seem to allow releasing my
modified code _myself_ without submitting it to
anyone, only the initial developer can do so.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The choice-of-venue makes it *non-free*.
There is no consensus about this, many people have no complaints about
choice of venue.
UNFREE: fails Desert Island test.
This is not relevant, because this test is not based on the DFSG so it
cannot make a license to be non-free.
UNFREE: fails Desert Island test.
This is not relevant, because this test is not based on the DFSG so it
cannot make a license to be non-free.
This requirement all fails the dissident test.
Quote fom the faq:
a.. The Dissident test.
Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to
On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:03 am, Joe Smith wrote:
a.. The Dissident test.
Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified
bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the
identity of the modifier, or *directly reveal the modifications
If this is actually a test that licenses must pass to be considered DFSG,
how
exactly does the GPL survive the test? Section 2, clause a of the GPL
reads,
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this
On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that you feel
hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are
commonly used.
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science
perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of
various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive
policy decisions based on thin air?
No.
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this violate the
Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen?
No, because the following statement is allowed
It's not a free software license because of this one.
4. Initial Developer as Maintainer of Source Code
The Initial Developer will be acting as the
maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
Initial Developer of any modification which You create
or to which You contribute, except
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this violate the
Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen?
On Saturday 11 June 2005 04:58 pm, Wei Mingzhi wrote:
It's not a free software license because of this one.
4. Initial Developer as Maintainer of Source Code
The Initial Developer will be acting as the
maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
Initial Developer of any
On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this
violate the Dissident test and
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science
perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group
of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (quoting the Sun RPC license):
but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (quoting the Sun RPC license):
but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I interpret that to mean that once the RPC code has
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD
But here is my blow by blow interpretation, which makes glibc DFSG free.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:10:35PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is
essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product
alone.
Got any citations?
The license certainly
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
We also have essentially the same license with
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
--
G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor.
Debian GNU/Linux | It has
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is
essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product
alone.
Got any citations?
The license certainly doesn't *read* like MIT/X11, except you may not
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 17:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC
without charge, but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the
reopen 181493 !
thanks
For the debian-legal people, this is the controversy at hand:
Sun RPC code is included as part of glibc. The license, which is
included below, prohibits distribution of the original code under its
original terms, which would make the license non-free. Including
non-free
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part of the software
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else
except as part of a product or program
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Has anybody asked Sun for a clarification of the license, or tried to
obtain the code under a different license? Or maybe the FSF has
obtained a suitable license and just forgot to update the copyright
notice?
Sun has
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is
essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product
alone.
That cuts out everything but the GPL/LGPL incompatibility problem,
which remains a sticking
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else
except as part of a product or program developed by
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else
except as
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:36:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicolas Kratz wrote:
OK, I'm dropping this. I don't see any way to get upstream to release
the software under a free license, as the copyright holder is indeed not
the author, but the university.
You shouldn't necessarily give up, if the upstream author (the
Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:45:36AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Note that relicensing software under a different licence that you have
merely repackaged is not considered good form.
It's not just bad form.
It's not even valid if one has not made any original contributions to
the work. Matthew
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
the licence then you
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:35:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Please do not discourage people from using this list for one of its
intended purposes.
If I can be discouraged from posting by a well-deserved smack, I don't
belong here.
If you feel this person should not have passed the
Hi Branden Robinson,
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:27:41PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
This is a good clarification. However if you recheck what I wrote above
you'll see I specifically mentioned permission to do something covered by
copyright law. I had in mind the activities covered by copyright law like
distribution
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard
Hello, world.
I am thinking about packaging a Java BDD tool called (of all things)
jade[1].
Before I venture further, can someone enlighten me about the freeness of
the attached license? It only talks about distribution, nothing about
derived works. And it looks like it was taken from the
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
Distribution
You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
all files are included. The files in this package are
This is freeware; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
ask?).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
