Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like
to
On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote:
A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the
official software being distributed timely and only from one source,
usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable
rammifications of their choice. I would recommend to
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
28 days of an upstream
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in
question is requiring a name change for even *unmodified*
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 19:27 +0100, I wrote:
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so
far as it
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I expected[2]. (However, there
is already an icewm, so I
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
place. Is it ?
It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the
author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
place. Is it ?
It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
place. Is
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Say a person X writes a library libfoo. He licenses the library out
under both the GPL and a commercial licence.
I think you mean and a proprietary license.
A person Y uses libfoo under the GPL. He goes and does a lot of
improvements in the library since it is
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
for open-source consumers and commercial licence is for closed-source
On 4/29/07, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you created the bindings using ctypes or similar, where there's no
actual linking taking place, I think it's all OK.
The specific technical mechanism used to link to libfoo doesn't matter. For
the purposes of the GPL, it matters whether
17 matches
Mail list logo
