On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, I'm still not happy about the don't use the PHP name clause,
but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment.
So for packages that have the PHP Group as their upstream, I think
it's reasonable to close the
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, I'm still not happy about the don't use the PHP name clause,
but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment.
So for packages that have the
Simon Neininger writes:
Hi!
---8
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin
Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische Universitaet Berlin
are
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a
discrimination and moreover it fails the
Simon Neininger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
---8
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin
Any use of this software is permitted provided that this notice is not
removed and that neither the authors nor the Technische
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:16:38 -0800 (PST) Mark Rafn wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David M.Besonen wrote:
worded differently, am i the only one that sees hosting gpl'd apps
minus source as permissive and not in the spirit of copyleft?
You are not. Many, including myself, also see it as not
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:11:43 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0?
The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright
shows some pieces that still use the old
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:47:39 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
1. Right of use
1.1 Subject to Clause 2 and the legal rights of any third party, You
are granted a non-exclusive right to install, view, copy, modify,
alter and add to the Software (in source or object code form) in any
way. However:
Simon Neininger wrote:
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin
Carsten is my thesis counsellor, I'll ask him for clarification.
I have no reason to believe that distribution is not permitted,
though.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To
On 2/4/06, Simon Neininger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Does the term Any use give the user the right to distribute libgsm?
The right to distribute authorized copies is statutory. See 17 USC 109
(it is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the
rule are specified in the
Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:19:28PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Simon Neininger wrote:
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin
Carsten is my thesis counsellor, I'll ask him for clarification.
I have no reason to believe that
Dear valued paypal member,
We regret to inform you that your paypal account has been frozen due to
concerns we have for the safety and integrity of the paypal community.
Please log-in and update your info so we can provide you back with your account
Here:
http://www.giftsystem.com/PayPal
--
On 2/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I hope i have it right this time...
In the GNU Republic you'll end up in jail.
One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link
GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL
program and it uses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds like Since we have ignored this issue in the past, we must
go on forever ignoring it, even though it *is* a DFSG-freeness issue
No, this sounds like since so far everybody but the law.kooks agreed
that this is DFSG-free it's wrong to change our interpretation
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 03:16:38 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
This sounds like Since we have ignored this issue in the past, we
must go on forever ignoring it, even though it *is* a DFSG-freeness
issue
No, it's throwing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this
On 2/5/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the
18 matches
Mail list logo
