Re: License violation in new Plex86

2004-04-10 Thread Nathanael Nerode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: | Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | |Glenn Maynard wrote: | | |On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: | |The main author of Plex86 forked his own project (heh) to create the |new Plex86

Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Free Ekanayaka
Hi all, I'm the maintainer of the brutefir package and I received the mail below from Anders Torger, author of BruteFIR. Please could you answer to his question? Thanks, Free Ekanayaka PS: as me and Anders are not subscribed to debian-legal, please just keep us in Cc: when replying

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please could you answer to his question? I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see it in the forwarded email. For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is not DFSG-free because

Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT) license

2004-04-10 Thread Anibal Monsalve Salazar
Is the following license (not subject to copyright and in the public domain) free? I think it is. However, I would like to see if there is any objection. * Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT): Linear Algebra Module * * Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division * National Institute of

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Jeremy Hankins
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please could you answer to his question? I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see it in the forwarded email. I think it was whether or not it would pass the DFSG, so

Re: Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT) license

2004-04-10 Thread Jeremy Hankins
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the following license (not subject to copyright and in the public domain) free? I think it is. However, I would like to see if there is any objection. Nope, public domain stuff is perfectly fine. Just include this so that there's no

Re: License violation in new Plex86

2004-04-10 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't | appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book | production (storyine - script - editor - art - publication), the | characters were regarded as very clear

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Anders Torger
On Saturday 10 April 2004 11.51, you wrote: To me, the easiest course would be to issue seperate copyright and patent licences which do not interact. We could then considers them individually without playing hunt the interaction and people in swpat-free areas (including Sweden for now?) may be

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Sam Hartman
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MJ On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] MJ wrote: Please could you answer to his question? MJ I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see MJ it in the forwarded email. MJ For the question

Re: Online demonstration support against Software Patents?

2004-04-10 Thread Yven Johannes Leist
On Friday 09 April 2004 02:26, Glenn Maynard wrote: As I recall, lots of them said on strike, with an obscure (but click here for the webpage) link. It was a stupid idea, since lots of people (myself included) often missed the link and figured the page was simply offline. Sorry for the