Invitación a Centro Comercial UBIMALL
Usted puede encontrar las más baratas tiendas en línea con un motor de búsqueda, pero con la ayuda de Ubimall puedes obtener los mejores clientes. Son exactamente los clientes que están dispuestos a pagar el servicio y la calidad. La palabra clave de Ubimall es social shopping ”Compras Sociales” Los clientes pueden pasar tiempo entre ellos y hablar de sus productos y compras. También pueden ofrecer apoyo y asesoramiento de productos con ayuda del navegador compartido. Visitenos en la dirección Ubimall España y Ubimall México. www.es.theubimall.com. Y www.mx.theubimall.com Es posible anunciar en las paredes y en los pisos de Ubimall. Visite nuestra página Imogen Business Solutions Oy www.imogen.fi Ofrecemos promoción de la tienda gratuita y espacio para publicidad en Ubimall de paredes y pisos. Si desea tener una tienda o espacio de publicidad no dude en ponerse en contacto conmigo. Adriana Luna Marketing Manager, Mexico Spain Sales Imogen Business Solutions PL 21 53850 Lappeenranta FINLAND email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 00-358-50-40-76987 www: www.theubimall.com / www.imogen.fi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OctDev] Clarification about PDF file license
David,
Sorry for the belated reply.
* David Bateman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-10 11:10]:
There remains the same issue with the comms toolbox where a similar
mechanism is used to build the documentation. For my code (a large part
of this toolbox) I give permission to release the documentation of the
code I'm response for under the terms of the license on the title page
of the comms.pdf file.
Could you please sort this out with the other authors of the communications
package?
* David Bateman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-10 11:15]:
Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of
the package itself under a GPL license then the only issue is the
inclusion of the fixed.texi and/or fixed.txi file within the package
tar-ball.
Yes, distribution of the source is a requirement of the DFSG (see item 2,
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines).
The documentation is delivered with the source files where the help strings
are taken and so there is nominally no GPL violation in that case.
I am not a license expert and I have no idea whether including GPL code in a
non-GPL released documentation is okay. I think it boils down to making
sure the licensing conditions expressed in fixed.txi are compatible with the
GPL. For the debian-legal people following this thread, here are the
conditions:
Copyright (C) 2004 Motorola Inc
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire
resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission
notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual
into another language, under the same conditions as for modified versions.
If its only the issue of the inclusion of fixed.{texi,txi} that is the
issue that is preventing the packages inclusion in debian I have no
objections to including these in the package tar-ball.
I think that including fixed.texi should be enough, even though it is
derived source. Including fixed.txi also will not hurt, although it cannot
be used to build fixed.texi from the tarball alone.
At any rate, you could slightly change the terms of the licensing terms by
adding that copy and modification of both source and derived forms of the
documentation are allowed.
--
Rafael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OctDev] Clarification about PDF file license
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
David,
Sorry for the belated reply.
* David Bateman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-10 11:10]:
There remains the same issue with the comms toolbox where a similar
mechanism is used to build the documentation. For my code (a large part
of this toolbox) I give permission to release the documentation of the
code I'm response for under the terms of the license on the title page
of the comms.pdf file.
Could you please sort this out with the other authors of the communications
package?
There are many and so that might be a difficult option.. Perhaps we
should investigate further the solutions below..
* David Bateman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-10 11:15]:
Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of
the package itself under a GPL license then the only issue is the
inclusion of the fixed.texi and/or fixed.txi file within the package
tar-ball.
Yes, distribution of the source is a requirement of the DFSG (see item 2,
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines).
Then I'll add the sources to the package and it'll be in the next
octave-forge release. I'd suggest adding the *.texi files as the perl
scripts mkdoc and mktexi from octave-forge then won't be needed.
The documentation is delivered with the source files where the help strings
are taken and so there is nominally no GPL violation in that case.
I am not a license expert and I have no idea whether including GPL code in a
non-GPL released documentation is okay. I think it boils down to making
sure the licensing conditions expressed in fixed.txi are compatible with the
GPL. For the debian-legal people following this thread, here are the
conditions:
Copyright (C) 2004 Motorola Inc
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire
resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission
notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual
into another language, under the same conditions as for modified versions.
Isn't the above license GPL compatible? If it isn't I don't think there
is an issue of change the license of this and the comms.txi file to have
a GPL compatible license. All text in the fixed.pdf file is mine and I
have the release paper work internal that would allow me to re-release
under a GPL compatible documentation license. As for comms.pdf the fixed
text from comms.txi is all mine and the rest of the text is taken from
the functions that are GPLed. So a GPL compatible documentation license
would fixed that as well.
So if the above license isn't compatible with the GPL what is a
compatible license as I see no issues in changing it to something else.
If its only the issue of the inclusion of fixed.{texi,txi} that is the
issue that is preventing the packages inclusion in debian I have no
objections to including these in the package tar-ball.
I think that including fixed.texi should be enough, even though it is
derived source. Including fixed.txi also will not hurt, although it cannot
be used to build fixed.texi from the tarball alone.
At any rate, you could slightly change the terms of the licensing terms by
adding that copy and modification of both source and derived forms of the
documentation are allowed.
Can debian legal express the exact terms that you want to make this
acceptable and sure I'll make the change. Or alternative propose another
license. Looking at the GFDL I don't think it would be compatible with
taking text from GPLed code, as the requirement to supply the source
code is removed. Ideas?
Regards
David
--
David Bateman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Motorola Labs - Paris+33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph)
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin+33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax)
The information contained in this communication has been classified as:
[x] General Business Information
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OctDev] Clarification about PDF file license
Rafael Laboissiere wrote: Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of the package itself under a GPL license then the only issue is the inclusion of the fixed.texi and/or fixed.txi file within the package tar-ball. Yes, distribution of the source is a requirement of the DFSG (see item 2, http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). The *.texi and *.txi files are now also part of the build of the fixed and comms packages in the SVN D. -- David Bateman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Motorola Labs - Paris+33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin+33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) The information contained in this communication has been classified as: [x] General Business Information [ ] Motorola Internal Use Only [ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM Public license compatibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for OpenDx currently doesn't have any specific license terms associated with it, however I've talked to the upstream author who said: b) If you could clarify what license terms it is distributed under? I've never thought about the license. I'd like GPL version 2, but I'm not sure if an external module with this license can be dynamically linked with OpenDx, that has, if I remember correctly, a GPL-incompatible license. What do you think? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's not compatible with GPL, so does anyone have any suggestions for a similar suitable alternative that would be compatible with the IBM public license? Thanks, Alan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIBx4X1FNW1LDdr0IRAracAJ9zAtu4uOcG76kpV3OvcTjtmJMScwCgk0ny 4nInwH4Xcd69mCN5pG7wtpo= =N8UV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neu: Handbuch Gesundheitswesen im Umbruch
Guten Tag Als Co-Heausgeber erlaube ich mir, Sie auf eine für das Gesundheitswesen einzigartige Neu-Publikation aufmerksam zu machen, mit besonderem Fokus Spitäler. Mit über 40 Fachautoren habe ich und meine 3 Co-Herausgeber versucht, den Umbruch der nächsten Jahre im Schweizer Gesundheitswesen darzulegen. Und dies auf eine Art und Weise, wie es noch nicht bestand. Wir haben uns dabei immer an den folgenden drei Kernfragen orientiert: - Wie sehen die Prozesse im Gesundheitswesen im Einzelnen aus? - Welches sind die massgeblichen Veränderungskräfte? - Was sind die Auswirkungen der Veränderungen auf Strategie und Kernprozesse der Spitäler, - Leistungserbringer, Krankenversicherer und der Pharma-Industrie? Die Konzeption des Schweizer Gesundheitswesens beinhaltet spannende Aspekte, welche für die künftige Reform des Deuschen Gesundheitswesens interessante Gedanken und Themen vorwegnimmt und thematisiert. Weitere Informationen entnehmen Sie den Links. Mit herzlichem Gruss und Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit Link zum Inhaltsverzeichnis http://www.ehealthcare.ch/data/_product_documents/_articles/6764/Inhaltsverzeichnis%20Handbuch.pdf Link zur Informationsbroschüre http://www.ehealthcare.ch/data/_product_documents/_articles/6764/Handbuch_flyer_einzeln.pdf Direktlink Bestellung: http://www.ehealthcare.ch/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticleaoid=6764lang=DE Im Namen der Herausgeber Michael Egli Meet the future of healthcare - meet the leaders _ eHealthCare.ch Kongress Kompendium Campus Services Konferenz und Fachausstellung 24./ 25. September 2008 TREND CARE AG, Bahnhofstrasse 40, CH-6210 Sursee Tel.: +41 (0)41 925 76 89 Fax: +41 (0)41 925 76 80 www.ehealthcare.ch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zum Abmelden klicken Sie bitte hier: : http://004.frnl.de/box.php?funcml=unsub2nl=114mi=190email=debian-legal%40lists.debian.org
Neu: Handbuch Gesundheitswesen im Umbruch
Guten Tag Als Co-Heausgeber erlaube ich mir, Sie auf eine für das Gesundheitswesen einzigartige Neu-Publikation aufmerksam zu machen, mit besonderem Fokus Spitäler. Mit über 40 Fachautoren habe ich und meine 3 Co-Herausgeber versucht, den Umbruch der nächsten Jahre im Schweizer Gesundheitswesen darzulegen. Und dies auf eine Art und Weise, wie es noch nicht bestand. Wir haben uns dabei immer an den folgenden drei Kernfragen orientiert: - Wie sehen die Prozesse im Gesundheitswesen im Einzelnen aus? - Welches sind die massgeblichen Veränderungskräfte? - Was sind die Auswirkungen der Veränderungen auf Strategie und Kernprozesse der Spitäler, - Leistungserbringer, Krankenversicherer und der Pharma-Industrie? Die Konzeption des Schweizer Gesundheitswesens beinhaltet spannende Aspekte, welche für die künftige Reform des Deuschen Gesundheitswesens interessante Gedanken und Themen vorwegnimmt und thematisiert. Weitere Informationen entnehmen Sie den Links. Mit herzlichem Gruss und Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit Link zum Inhaltsverzeichnis http://www.ehealthcare.ch/data/_product_documents/_articles/6764/Inhaltsverzeichnis%20Handbuch.pdf Link zur Informationsbroschüre http://www.ehealthcare.ch/data/_product_documents/_articles/6764/Handbuch_flyer_einzeln.pdf Direktlink Bestellung: http://www.ehealthcare.ch/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticleaoid=6764lang=DE Im Namen der Herausgeber Michael Egli Meet the future of healthcare - meet the leaders _ eHealthCare.ch Kongress Kompendium Campus Services Konferenz und Fachausstellung 24./ 25. September 2008 TREND CARE AG, Bahnhofstrasse 40, CH-6210 Sursee Tel.: +41 (0)41 925 76 89 Fax: +41 (0)41 925 76 80 www.ehealthcare.ch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zum Abmelden klicken Sie bitte hier: : http://004.frnl.de/box.php?funcml=unsub2nl=114mi=189email=debian-legal%40lists.debian.org
Re: [OctDev] Clarification about PDF file license
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:27:56 +0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[...]
* David Bateman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-10 11:15]:
[...]
I am not a license expert and I have no idea whether including GPL code in a
non-GPL released documentation is okay. I think it boils down to making
sure the licensing conditions expressed in fixed.txi are compatible with the
GPL. For the debian-legal people following this thread, here are the
conditions:
Copyright (C) 2004 Motorola Inc
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire
resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission
notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual
into another language, under the same conditions as for modified versions.
As I already said in this same thread[1], I think this license is
GPL-incompatible.
[1] see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00047.html
If its only the issue of the inclusion of fixed.{texi,txi} that is the
issue that is preventing the packages inclusion in debian I have no
objections to including these in the package tar-ball.
I think that including fixed.texi should be enough, even though it is
derived source.
What do you mean derived source?
Which is the preferred form for making modifications to fixed.pdf?
Would the author prefer modifying fixed.texi or fixed.txi?
The preferred form is the source code.
Including fixed.txi also will not hurt, although it cannot
be used to build fixed.texi from the tarball alone.
Why not?
Are we missing a Build-Depends, by chance?
My disclaimers, as usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs
The nano-document series is here!
. Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpxTYKEizx4D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [OctDev] Clarification about PDF file license
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:06 +0200 David Bateman wrote: Rafael Laboissiere wrote: [...] * David Bateman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-10 11:15]: Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of the package itself under a GPL license then the only issue is the inclusion of the fixed.texi and/or fixed.txi file within the package tar-ball. Yes, distribution of the source is a requirement of the DFSG (see item 2, http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). Then I'll add the sources to the package and it'll be in the next octave-forge release. I'd suggest adding the *.texi files as the perl scripts mkdoc and mktexi from octave-forge then won't be needed. I think it would be useful if you (David) clarified a bit how the PDF file is compiled from which source files licensed under which terms, since I am beginning to get lost in trying to follow this discussion! Sorry! :p If I understand correctly, the PDF file is a manual compiled from a .texi file, which, in its turn, is generated from a .txi file *and* from a significant number of parts extracted from some .cc files. *.cc \ |--- fixed.texi --- fixed.pdf fixed.txi -- / The .cc files are released under the GNU GPL (which one? v2 only? v2 or later? v3 only? v3 or later? ...). fixed.txi is Copyright (C) 2004 Motorola Inc and released under the license that has been quoted previously in this same thread (and is GPL-incompatible). But everything in fixed.txi is written by you (David), and you have the permission from Motorola to relicense the text as you wish. Did I get it right? [...] Isn't the above license GPL compatible? I don't think so... If it isn't I don't think there is an issue of change the license of this and the comms.txi file to have a GPL compatible license. All text in the fixed.pdf file is mine and I have the release paper work internal that would allow me to re-release under a GPL compatible documentation license. As for comms.pdf the fixed text from comms.txi is all mine and the rest of the text is taken from the functions that are GPLed. So a GPL compatible documentation license would fixed that as well. If the situation may be described as I did above (in the If I understand correctly part), then I think you could relicense the .txi files under a GPL-compatible license and solve the issue once and for all! So if the above license isn't compatible with the GPL what is a compatible license as I see no issues in changing it to something else. [...] My usual recommendations are: * the GNU GPL itself, if you want a copyleft * the Expat license[1], if you don't want a copyleft on the text (but please note that the resulting PDF file would anyway be covered by the GNU GPL, because of the parts extracted from GPL'd .cc files) [1] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt Once more: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. And by the way: thanks to David for his cooperative attitude! ;-) -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpNobGMjkEbC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IBM Public license compatibility
Alan Woodland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for OpenDx currently doesn't have any specific license terms associated with it, however I've talked to the upstream author who said: b) If you could clarify what license terms it is distributed under? I've never thought about the license. I'd like GPL version 2, but I'm not sure if an external module with this license can be dynamically linked with OpenDx, that has, if I remember correctly, a GPL-incompatible license. What do you think? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's not compatible with GPL, so does anyone have any suggestions for a similar suitable alternative that would be compatible with the IBM public license? Well, if the module is not considered a derived work of OpenDx, then the GPL with aspecial linking exception would work just fine. Otherwise the code must be distributed under a an IBM public licence compatible licence, with the combined work as a whole being shipped under the IBM public licence. Of course, dual licencing the the code under the users choice of the IBM Public Licence and the GPL is also a reasonable idea if copyleft and GPL-compatibility is desired. (Both licences are copyleft. The IBM one lets extra terms be imposed or offered on the licence of an object code form of the program, but it still requires the corresponding source code to be available to users under itself.) DISCLAIMERS: IANAL. IANADD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
