Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to
Matthew Wala wrote:
And people can copypaste
that code out of your project and reuse it elsewhere under
the original (BSD) terms.
Doesn't section 2b say that projects reusing BSD code from a GPL'd
project have to be GPL'd?
The GPL applies to the combination of the old BSD code and the
newly
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:42:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not particularly
interesting to discuss.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:16:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Regardless, that distribution in compliance with relevant licenses
doesn't necessarily absolve you of all liabilities is well known, and
not an issue I'm terribly intersted in discussing in the abstract.
[And if for some reason
I think I'll just give up on this and work on packaging ALT-N's libdkim and
getting Exim to support it instead. Not much fun spending time on something
that's already been superseded, especially if it's not going to be in Etch.
The only reason was that Yahoo and some others still DK-sign, not
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
that
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:56:02 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
OK. Let's declare victory and move on. Proposed statement:
We believe that the draft CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses appear to be
Free Licenses, so that most works licensed under them will probably
satisfy the DFSG. Please
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:06:19 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
[...]
baring competent legal advice to the contrary,[1] distributing
sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing
otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in
Francesco Poli writes:
What makes you think that every and each copyright holder acted in good
faith when started to distribute firmware under the terms of the GNU GPL
v2, while keeping the source code secret?
Some copyright holder could be deliberately preparing a trap, in order
to be able
11 matches
Mail list logo
