Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the DFSG and the GPL it does. Saying You may not
distribute this work along with a frame designed to hold it violates
DFSG 1.
But saying You may only distribute this work with a frame designed to
hold it if that frame is freely distributed is
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the DFSG and the GPL it does. Saying You may not
distribute this work along with a frame designed to hold it violates
DFSG 1.
But saying You may only distribute this work with a frame designed
to
hold
Hello all,
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly
appreciated:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a copyright question for you. To the extent my company wants
to use the Debian Linux O/S as an embedded O/S in a device, can you
please advise what copyright notice I should cite to? I understand I
must include the GPL language but after reading your policy
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly
appreciated:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
Wouldn't a typical install of Debian also properly install all the licenses
required? Do the Debian install scripts break the licenses of the component
software? Disk space is so cheap I can't see any developer spending time to
remove anything put in by an install.
Why would he have to do more
Hi Chris
Very pragmatic reasoning. I wondered the same thing. From a practical
standpoint, why would someone ask us for source code (ie, order it, pay for
replication costs, then wait for it to be shipped) when you could download
immediately for free. In any event we want to error on the
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:34AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A compiler can only perform a transformation from source to object form
programmed into it by its creators; it is neither an author nor capable
of creativity; it can this not produce an original work of authorship or
thus a
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
(Please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The
authoritative source for this information would be the actual licenses
for the packages you include.)
[snip]
Excellent text. Could someone put this on www.d.o
Josh, thank you for taking the time to point me to some great reading!
-Tom
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source
Christopher Priest [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should anyone but the source be required to keep or distribute source
code when it is freely available from Debian. The web was not
available when
Debian may not be around forever. Many embedded devlopers don't
publicize which distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Chris
Very pragmatic reasoning. I wondered the same thing. From a
practical standpoint, why would someone ask us for source code (ie,
order it, pay for replication costs, then wait for it to be shipped)
Not everybody who will get ahold of your product has a
12 matches
Mail list logo
