MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
didn't find it in the archives.
Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first?
I didn't find it helpful in this
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL very deliberately does not specify
the preferred form for modification, and authors shouldn't do so (at
least not in a legally-binding way or an attempt to interpret the GPL).
Right. I think there is no harm in saying
Thank you, Andrew, Michael, MJ and Raul for your comments.
I was asking this question because I got involved in a license
discussion with an author who published a preliminary version of a
document on a preliminary licsense, the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0.
During
Frank Küster wrote:
I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems
clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a
text under GPL.
But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for
an author who considers GPL for his text,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
...
This isn't really the right forum for that.
Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and
with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)?
It would be possible (see GPL FAQ
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better?
Yes, it would, but I can't find details of a licensing forum on
their pages. Where is it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non-public enquiry service, as far as I can tell.
It does not seem to publish performance
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
...
This isn't really the right forum for that.
Well, hm, yes, no. Indeed the case that made me post this question
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and
with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)?
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
Is this license DFSG-free? I ask you that because I sent a RFP for
nutch...
http://www.nutch.org/LICENSE.txt
For the archive record (please always include license texts, not just
a link):
---
/*
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:45:44 -0500
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
Is this license DFSG-free? I ask you that because I sent a RFP for
nutch...
http://www.nutch.org/LICENSE.txt
For the archive record (please always
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
As someone said, this is the old Apache license. XXX may not appear
in the name of derivative works is ugly and over-reaching; I think it
should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds DFSG#4), but I don't
feel strongly
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:36:40PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Copyright notices can use aliases, right? I don't know anything
about how enforcable that renders that person's copyright claim, but
I don't think it renders the license invalid.
At least in the US, the copyright would still
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:09:59AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:55:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I believe that most of us have come to the conclusion that self-protection
clauses are free. These are of the form:
If you make a legal claim stating that use
Your papers are not in order, citizen...
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:04:25PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
All in all, I think that Branden's fifth freedom[1] is important, and
should come into play here. Privacy in one's person includes fundamental
[...]
[1]
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Branden Robinson wrote:
As should be well-known, Stephen King is a money machine. I find it
hard to believe he'd have published under a pen name if to do so
would have meant exposing himself to claims of fraudulent copyright.
Definetly.
Just to clarify, in case it was
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:08:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Your papers are not in order, citizen...
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:04:25PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
All in all, I think that Branden's fifth freedom[1] is important, and
should come into play here. Privacy in one's person
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:54:34 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
Any Stephen King fans here?
Here I am!
Anyone have access to any copies of his Richard Bachman novels from
before it was disclosed that Richard Bachman was a nom de plume of
Stephen King?
No, but I read _The regulators_ that was
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:28:32 -0500
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
As someone said, this is the old Apache license. XXX may not
appear in the name of derivative works is ugly and over-reaching;
I think it should be
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we have to split the alsa-tools source into two packages, one free
and one non-free/contrib? It will make it a bit harder.
No.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. All of the source for packages
in main must satisfy the
Walter Landry writes:
When Debian puts Eclipse into main, Debian is distributing Eclipse to
be used with Kaffe. When it is in contrib, Debian is distributing
Eclipse to be used by something outside of main.
To the extent the first part is true, the second part is false. Also
to the extent
21 matches
Mail list logo
