On Friday 06 May 2005 02:28, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi,
I recently came across ths Artistic 2 (2.0beta5) license at:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/LICENSE/Artistic-2
I couldn't find any previous reference to a DFSG discussion about it.
Would it be considered DFSG-free?
For reference, the
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon
under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under
the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it
under the GPL should be just fine.
Then I would like to exercise my right
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 03:53, Raul Miller wrote:
Those .h files were held to be not protected by copyright because no
viable alternatives were available to interface with the system.
It's hard to see how this reasoning would apply in a context where there
is some viable alternative
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to
the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to
the work.
I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to
the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to
the work.
I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 01:47, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they
are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification
because of lack of documentation, poor programming practices
On Monday 28 February 2005 11:16, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that
the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We
don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we
have the DFSG because
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:34AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A compiler can only perform a transformation from source to object form
programmed into it by its creators; it is neither an author nor capable
of creativity; it can this not produce an original work of authorship or
thus a
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
(Please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The
authoritative source for this information would be the actual licenses
for the packages you include.)
[snip]
Excellent text. Could someone put this on www.d.o
10 matches
Mail list logo
