[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hope to have answered to your question. I am sorry but I did not succeed
in asking Berkeley's Regents for a license change.
Didn't they issue a blanket license change for _all_ code owned by them
under the old bsd license?
Yes.
But the original spice code was not under
Hope to have answered to your question. I am sorry but I did not succeedin asking Berkeley's Regents for a license change.
Didn't they issue a blanket license change for _all_ code owned by them under the old bsd license?
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 02:26:16AM +0300, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote:
Below I include the answer I got from Mr Nenzi about the ngspice licencing.
In short, I asked him about the possibility of a re-release of ngspice with
the new BSD license or something else compatible with Debian. The short
Below I include the answer I got from Mr Nenzi about the ngspice licencing. In
short, I asked him about the possibility of a re-release of ngspice with the new
BSD license or something else compatible with Debian. The short answer is no.
In the face of that, would it be possible to include a
On Saturday 23 July 2005 04:41 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 21:46 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 23 July 2005 08:04 pm, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a
moment that the U.S. has some strict export
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software and
|documentation.
That sounds non-free.
Suppose I'm *not* a
On Saturday 23 July 2005 04:41 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software and
|
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a moment
that the U.S. has some strict export restriction. As a U.S. citizen I am
bound by those laws and cannot legally violate them. Further, if I am to
distribute
On Saturday 23 July 2005 08:04 pm, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a
moment that the U.S. has some strict export restriction. As a U.S.
citizen I am bound by those laws and cannot
On Thursday 21 July 2005 04:49 pm, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote:
X-Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to create a package for ng-spice, which seems to be governed by
two licenses, which I include herein. In first
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and non-profit
purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6. License 2 is less
obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that forbids charging a
fee for distribution is
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and
non-profit purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6.
License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe that a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Kellogg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and
non-profit purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG
* Anthony W. Youngman:
Actually, doesn't the GPL itself contain exactly the same restriction,
just worded a bit differently?
The GPL forbids charging for the code itself.
Only for the source code which you must make available when you
distribute binaries, you may not charge for anything but
15 matches
Mail list logo
