Scripsit Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe an explicit statement of this point would be a useful addition,
possibly in the introduction?
I think you're right in general, but I'm not happy with your exact
text:
Note that the /license/ is the terms of the /license text/ as
interpreted by
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai quotes:
LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with
Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with
non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
How can this be free?
--
Raul
Oh, wait, you were asking a different question...
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. Subject to the
terms of this Agreement, Intel grants to you a nonexclusive,
nontransferable, worldwide, fully paid-up license
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:48:19AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecessary -
the text ought to be framed such that it speaks only of the freedom of
the actual license grant made by the author.
Part 5 doesn't seem to fit this description.
Bah, I need sleep, minor nitpick:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 12:42:33AM -0400, I wrote:
(iii) only covers end-users
(iii) only covers documentation
Sebastian Ley wrote:
Hello legal wizards,
I need some advice about a license, my legal-english is not enough to
determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
is distributable in non-free.
The license can be found here:
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 04:33:47AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I understand and respect your opinion. However, it seems likely that a
GR to update the DFSG *will* be proposed by someone within the next
handful (or two) of months. I think that if we are to update it at
all, it deserves being
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 12:49:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecessary -
the text ought to be framed such that it speaks only of the freedom of
the actual license grant made by the author.
Part 5 doesn't seem to fit this
In contrast, a choice-of-law merely specifies which country's contract
law will be used to resolve disputes over what the license text mean.
By my (poor) understanding, contract law and copyright law are not the
same; perhaps contract can be removed. Also, perhaps s/country/region/
(the laws of
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai quotes:
LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with
Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with
non-Intel component products is not licensed
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By my (poor) understanding, contract law and copyright law are not the
same; perhaps contract can be removed. Also, perhaps s/country/region/
(the laws of California); s/mean/means/.
Yup. Braino, fixed.
--
Henning Makholm
Thanks for the input.
The license clearly seems to be made for vendors that bundle driver
CDs or preinstall the driver on hardware. I'll contact the project
leadet about this, it must be in their interest that the firmware is
distributable through channels that are common in the Linux world
(i.e.
@ 31/05/2004 02:21 : wrote Glenn Maynard :
2. Source code The source for a work is a machine-readable form that
is appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and
inner workings.
Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL?
You've said it below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B(B
[$B;~Be$N$a!$k%^%,%8%s(B]$B#0#0#5#2#79f(B
$B!!(B
$B(,(B[PR]$B(,#12/1_!#22/1_0Je}F~TB3=P(,(,%M%C%H$G=PMh$k8D?M%S%8%M%9(,(,(B
Forwarding to list with permission of author.
- Forwarded message from Alexander Nordström, Svenska Linuxföreningen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Alexander Nordström, Svenska Linuxföreningen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising
Sebastian Ley said on Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:11:22PM +0200,:
If they refuse to change or clarify the license, what would you
think of getting a special permission for distributing it in
debian? They have given it before (see my first post). What would I
have to take care of?
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:59:28PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Cannot be included, not even in non-free, IMHO. Will violate DFSG #8.
Nothing in non-free is up to DFSG standards.
--
Raul
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: cgal
Version : 3.0.1
Upstream Author : CGAL Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.cgal.org/
* License : partly LGPL, partly QPL (see below)
Description : C++ library for computational geometry
Joachim Reichel wrote:
License:
The library consists of three modules. The lower layers (Kernel and the
Support library) are licensed under LGPL, the upper layer (Basic Library) is
licensed under QPL. Code under LGPL and code under QPL is combined in one
library.
I've CC'ed debian-legal
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Sebastian Ley said on Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:11:22PM +0200,:
If they refuse to change or clarify the license, what would you
think of getting a special permission for distributing it in
debian? They have given it before (see my first post). What would I
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The other issue here is that the QPL is not a Free Software license
at all. See the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00233.html for
details. The QPL requires that all changes are sent to the original
author upon
I've asked you in the past to fix your mailer, so it doesn't break
threads. You have laid waste to several large threads on d-devel.
You're still doing so. Please fix it; breaking threads is breaking
conversations, when threads become large.
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:47:28AM -0300, Humberto
Part of /usr/share/doc/libkrb53/copyright:
The following copyright and permission notice applies to the
OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create,
kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions
of lib/rpc:
Copyright, OpenVision Technologies,
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I actually don't think the GPL Preamble is entirely legally irrelevant; it
would presumably color the legal interpretation of the GPL if a question of
interpretation came up.
On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:07:02 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
Part 5 seems like it should be an appendix, and not part of the core
guidelines.
I agree: much better to separate those /examples/ from the actual
guidelines.
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a
On Sun, 30 May 2004 09:06:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
* question: Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds.
However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that
specify that the program must not be sold alone but only as part of
an aggregate
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:28:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
just give examples of things it *cannot*. I think that such a revision
could get the
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:06:15AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
As long as there is no
restriction on how much additional software must be included, the
requirement could be satisfied by either:
[...]
* a one byte file containing w, which would be a valid sh script to
run the w command.
As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly
deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for
the GPL at all.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I'd like to append something like the following:
The license may not
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 04:15:35PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system
source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the
following terms. If you do not agree to the following terms, do not
retrieve the
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:47:01PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
Right: If something needs special permission, it is non-free and can at
most go into non-free. But since non-free is not part of debian (the
distribution), special permission only for distributing it *in* debian
would be useless
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 10:54:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Phrase the proposed restriction in a way that is not specific to
patents. Then construct a scenario where you apply it to copyright. Is
it still an acceptable restriction?
I think this would be a mistake.
Patents are more
32 matches
Mail list logo
