debian.mailingli...@melachim.net writes:
> What is the work we are discussing? Can we see the full source online
> somewhere (to see its entire license grant)?
(That was written by me in a previous message, but it's appearing in the
material you wrote. I think something is failing in your
What is the work we are discussing? Can we see the full source online
somewhere (to see its entire license grant)?
http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wordplay/wordplay_7.22.orig.tar.gz
Sincerely,
Moshe Piekarski
--
There's no such thing as a stupid question,
But there are plenty of
Moshe Piekarski writes:
> Can I re-release code written under this license as gpl-2?
What is the work we are discussing? Can we see the full source online
somewhere (to see its entire license grant)?
--
\ “Of all classes the rich are the most noticed and the least |
`\
> This program was written for fun and is free. Distribute it as you
please,
>but please distribute the entire package, with the original
words721.txt and
> the readme file. If you modify the code, please mention my name in it as
> the original author. Please send me a copy of improvements you
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:31:22 +0100 Laszlo Kajan wrote:
[...]
Dear Team members!
Hello Laszlo,
I am a debian-legal regular and what follows is my own personal opinion
on the issue (from the licensing point of view).
The usual disclaimers apply (IANAL, TINLA, ...).
PSICOV [1], a protein
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you very much Francesco!
I would like to implement a free alternative to PSICOV, therefore I have
contacted the authors of glasso and asked them to consider changing the
license to GPL-2+ (2 or later), as you recommended.
Best regards,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Team members!
PSICOV [1], a protein contact prediction tool, is built with a patched version
of the GPL-2 Fortran source glasso [2]:
gfortran -O3 psicov.c glasso_psicov.f90 -lm -lgsl -lgslcblas -o psicov
The license of PSICOV does not seem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is
distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for
OpenDx currently doesn't have any specific license terms associated with
it, however I've talked to the
Alan Woodland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is
distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for
OpenDx currently doesn't have any
Hi,
I have some small problem with Gnash that might be extensible to other
packages, so I'm asking here to find out if anyone else has had that
problem too and how did they manage it.
Gnash is GNU's free Flash player. It is now licensed under GPLv3 (it
was previously GPLv2 or above). It has a
Hi Miriam,
On 2008-01-24 13:49 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
I have some small problem with Gnash that might be extensible to other
packages, so I'm asking here to find out if anyone else has had that
problem too and how did they manage it.
Gnash is GNU's free Flash player. It is now licensed
2008/1/24, Sven Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Miriam,
You will be interested that Trolltech has released Qt 3.3.8 under GPL 3:
Thanks, it really solves a great part of the problem, but I have no
idea on how to check that there are no other GPLv2 only libraries
directly or indirectly linked,
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have no idea on how to check that there are no other GPLv2 only
libraries directly or indirectly linked, apart from spending hours
checking manually.
This seems like an ideal case to promote the proposed format
[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
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
They want their trademarks stripped from modified
code that is essentially different in intent and purpose from the
original code.
Well, that's fine; we don't want to use their trademarks for things which
aren't designed to work with their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, any trademark license would permit us to use their
trademark, which we could not do otherwise.
This is a misunderstanding of trademark.
It is always legal to describe the driver as being a driver by author
intended for use with trademark, because that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
license that is agreeable to all parties.
Obviously any advertising or
guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us.
Well, no; some such restrictions are acceptable. We accept the required NO
Hello.
Please accept my apologies if I am flogging a dead horse. I have ST*W
but I cannot find a definitive solution to this problem. I did find a
thread [1] on debian-legal from last year but it had more questions
than answers ;-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00236.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
technology. Unfortunately, the company's trademark guide makes the
following restrictions on the use of the trademark:
(1) the product (i.e. the Linux kernel) must display the trademark on
the splash screen (or in the About... box);
(2) the trademark must appear in all
Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What terms could we accept?
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
Can we accept the restriction that any modification to the product
must, at a minimum, first strip the
MJ Ray wrote:
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
technology. If the bluetooth driver was named harold and the trident
driver named poseidon it would
On 5/19/05, Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
license that is agreeable to all parties. Obviously any advertising or
guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us. Unlimited use of the
trademark is unacceptable to
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X. (Of course, what is legal and
what keeps you from getting sued aren't nececssarily the same.)
On 5/19/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X. (Of course, what is legal and
what keeps
I'm not at all sure that all advertising or guarantee restrictions are
unacceptable to us.
Yes ;-)
It was a poor choice of words on my part. I had intended that to mean
any advertising or guarantee restrictions of the kind outlined in my
original email (viz. trademarks on the splash screen and
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X.
Yes, and there should be no need
Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
technology. If the bluetooth driver was named harold
On 5/19/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in
question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name
X,
it should be
42 matches
Mail list logo
