On Jan 2, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it's not different at all - and a license that says you aren't allowed
to do anything illegal with this software is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil
disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of
software in Debian.
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name
under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I
don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write
his format, however. A
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file?
Yes. Either it provides validation capabilities they don't need, or they have
some hand-written code to deal with the parts that were automated because of
having the schema
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
CLOSED derivative works.
If it's copyright, it's proprietary.
proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore
it's property, therefore it's proprietary.
Although the GNU project disagrees again with your
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
This part followed if it's the book I think it is, then I already
have read it. Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the
book linked, but elsewhere in the book read.
Indeed. BTW, I should have interpreted the original phrase as read
the
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
(And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of emphasis
on getting things right.)
Sorry, but I don't know what groklaw is, at least, not enough to guess about
your interests in it. I'm contacting debian-legal because
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is,
then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was
blind.
Still, I have given references to Stallman, to the GNU pages, to the XEmacs
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
It's a law site, where SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM, Novell and Linux in
general is getting thoroughly dissected. If you're not interested then fair
enough, but copyright and the GPL in particular are very important there.
I have
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
More precisely, the grant would need to say (words to the effect of)
either:
You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the following terms:
foo, bar, baz.
or:
You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the terms of foobar license;
see
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message f4ccec28-fe42-4af3-b0c0-c832a6b0d...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew
Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says
[ on combining LGPL and Artistic Licenses in a single JAR file
as part of a Java library distribution.]
On Dec 12, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
I believe that neither of these licences specify the licence of the code
they are linked with, so this will be alright. The resulting
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I may (well) be wrong, but I've always understood the INTENT of the artistic
licence to be BSD plus a trademark licence.
It has some clauses which are decidedly non-BSD-ish. See for example section
(8) of the Artistic License 2.0.
It
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message f4ccec28-fe42-4af3-b0c0-c832a6b0d...@dalkescientific.com, Andrew
Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com writes
I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and
by doing so you are taking away user rights
There seems to be a licensing problem with some of the chemistry software
packages, at least one of which is included in Debian. I'm working with a few
of the package developers to see if there really is a problem. We need some
better advice than I can find.
Short version:
- Can an LGPL 2.1
14 matches
Mail list logo
