Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:06:39 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Your use of the trademark may not create a sense of endorsement,
sponsorship, or false association with the trademark holder.
Your use of the trademark may not diminish the distinctiveness
of the
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:54:47 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Anyway, I have a question: does the latter (may not [...] harm the
reputation of the trademark holder) prevent me from stating
Debian GNU/Linux sucks badly
Good point. I would say no, as long as
Francesco Poli wrote:
How would the revised wording look like?
Basically, you need to forbid people from doing things with the mark
that create confusion or that make it look like these things are
endorsed by the Debian Project (or SPI?).
I could imagine something like this would be a good
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
You shall not publish or distribute this documentation in any form or
on any media, except if you distribute the documentation in a manner
similar to how MySQL disseminates it (that is, electronically for
download on a Web site with the software) or on a CD-ROM or
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:28:15 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
How would the revised wording look like?
Basically, you need to forbid people from doing things with the mark
that create confusion or that make it look like these things are
endorsed by the Debian Project
Dear people,
Please tell me gently if I am in the wrong place to ask this question.
I would like to know whether the Swiss Ephemeris Public Licence which
can be found at:
ftp://astro.com/pub/swisseph/src/LICENSE
is GPL-compatible or not. That is, can I write a program based on this
library
On 4/14/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pointed out to them that the SEPL does not have the modifications to
be redistributed as patches only restriction which is the basic problem
with the QPL, but after that I did not get any reply from them at all.
2. You may copy and
Hello,
Please consider the following scenarios to help me better understand
whether BSD* and MIT code are compatible.
*I am referring to the 3-clause BSD license:
http://opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/bsd-license.php
Scenario
Suppose that (1) I have two C source files (mit.c and
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remarks
===
The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an
additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names
to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks.
Um, neither the BSD nor the MIT
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an
additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names
to promote the product) that the MIT license lacks.
Um, neither the BSD nor the
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an
additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names
to
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wonderful! Thanks for the clarification. :-)
So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT
portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license?
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when I appended bsd.c to mit.c, did the entire mit.c become
licensed under both licenses? That is, did the originally-MIT
portions of mit.c inherit the extra condition from the BSD license?
The combination of
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to extract the originally-MIT portions from the file
and act upon them only according to the MIT license?
Yes, because if you can extract the exact portions that are MIT
licensed there's no way you could tell the difference
14 matches
Mail list logo
