On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:57PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
However, the author of the icons has indicated he'd be willing to
relicense them, within the constraints of the original work, of
course. Now, CC-SA 2.5 section 4.b says
You may distribute, publicly display,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:05PM -0800, Eitan Isaacson wrote:
3. The translation tables that are read at run-time are considered
part of this code and are under the terms of the GPL. Any changes to
these tables and any additional tables that are created for use by
this code must be made
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Do 21 Feb 2008 10:25:01 CET
schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
IMHO the patches sent to a upstream author which
doesn't patch the original copyright (adding a name or
a copyright line) should be
On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
disclaimer like TINLA?
Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
On Jan 28, 2008 12:05 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the
Mozilla foundation would have let that pass.
There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have been covered
by a prohibition on calling it Firefox or
On Jan 24, 2008 10:48 PM, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (off-list):
Maybe I'm missing someone, but in this scenario, isn't it the user who logs
in, not the administrator, making the copy? The administrator wouldn't
be conveying anything since he's not copying. The user is distributing
On Jan 25, 2008 12:07 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can execute things you cannot read:
$ ls -l /bin/ls
---x--x--x 1 root root 77352 2007-01-30 18:51 /bin/ls
Thanks. I stand corrected.
However, presumably for many programs licensed under GPL v.3 there
will be a number of
On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient
creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't
(and I am not sure something like /etc/make.conf is 'creative'), then
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the
licence, but it's not non-free.
I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of retain
copyright is not all-inclusive.
Well, as ever in these
On Jan 24, 2008 8:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright (1984-2007) Brendan McKay. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby given for use and/or
distribution with the exception of sale for profit or
application with nontrivial military significance.
On Jan 24, 2008 9:47 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if
you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence.
I assume you mean if you *can't* get it licensed under a
DFSG-compatible licence. On that basis, I
On Jan 24, 2008 7:41 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is actually a very intriguing question. If I have a shell account
on someone's computer, and I can copy a binary that resides somewhere
in /bin (or wherever), is the work being distributed to me?
toad:~ ls -l /bin/ls
On Jan 24, 2008 11:41 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu Jan 24 11:37, John Halton wrote:
It seems clear enough that the administrators of toad are
propagating /bin/ls. And that propagation is one that enables
other parties to make or receive copies. Nor is this mere
On Jan 24, 2008 2:31 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(How) Should i ask politely to the people running this site/shop to
remove the tshirt?
Any advices would be great. i dont really want to send them an email
with something like hey remove that tshirt because i say so ;)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:33:34AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Dear legal beagles, please close this loophole, if any.
As outlined previously in the discussion, I don't think there *is* a
loophole here. Anyone using GPL v.3 software (which includes almost
all GNU software issued since GPL
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:19AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Here's a 2003 debian-legal discussion about the ASP loophole:
Thanks. The distinction here is that in the classic ASP loophole
situation you are accessing the
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
The following copyright and permission notice
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat
this software freedom.
AIUI this says that
On Jan 18, 2008 10:22 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom spot Callaway, from Red Hat, announced  that Fedora won't be
including any game of the kind of Frets on Fire, Stepmania, pydance,
digiband, or anything of the kind of DDR or Guitar Hero, due to patent
On Jan 18, 2008 12:20 PM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a European patent EP1064974B1 and a Japanese application
You can locate family members by going to
entering one member's number (US6347998 in
On Jan 14, 2008 2:56 PM, Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Openstreetmap (OSM) project (http://openstreetmap.org/) currently
licenses all data under the CC-by-sa 2.0 license. IIRC, some/most of the CC
licenses had some problems wrt DFSG-freeness
My understanding is that CC-by-sa 2.0 is
On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol
description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other
than ssh or Secure Shell.
This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:18:00PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
I am taking care of the (forthcoming) freevo packages.
Some artwork is covered by the attached Design Science License.
Is it fine to include that stuff in the package and upload?
(I would say yes, but you may have a
On Jan 9, 2008 4:01 AM, Michal Čihař [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
commercial distribution may impose other
requirements (e.g., acknowledgement of copyright or inclusion of the
raw nroff sources with the commercial distribution)
Sounds to me like that may just be a reference to the requirements of
On Jan 9, 2008 12:20 AM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] because no lawyer on Earth knows [why] they aren't in mixed
case and everybody seems to think that everybody else knows and
that he's the only one that doesn't know and he was absent that
day in law school.
On Jan 9, 2008 3:32 PM, Tristan Seligmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copyright when XSF license it is covering a specification and if a
modified work is something else, that doesn't change the nature of
what your copyright was, as far as I can tell.
I think something went wrong with your
On Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM, Ivan Shmakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
Permission to use, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation
for any purpose without fee
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
Thank you for the
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The proposed license talks about a Specification, which becomes a bit
problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is
not a Specification anymore. I could turn it into a poem, or into a
On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Ian Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A literal translation would be Since this work is copyright free I do not
mind if you use it freely, commercially or non-commercially. However, If you
include it in a commercial work, please contact me before hand..
On Jan 7, 2008 1:43 PM, Satoru KURASHIKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be,
--, However, If you include them in the commercial collection of
materials, please contact me beforehand.
It regards them(commercial collection of materials) as an exception.
NG: commercial collection of
On Jan 7, 2008 1:38 PM, Vincent Fourmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that
the copyright notices conflict, and effectively render the file not
distributable, but I am not quite sure; if this file is effectively a
derived work from the work copyrighted by the Universtity of North
rights giving an author
to be identified as such.
Plus, a general legal requirement to preserve copyright notices would
also require a general legal definition of copyright notice, which
would not necessarily be a simple matter. If I put the following in a
copyright work: (C) 2007 John Halton. All
On Jan 2, 2008 3:05 PM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Art. 6bis of Berne provides the right of the author to claim
authorship of the work. It seems reasonable to consider a copyright
notice as a claim of authorship (in the normal case, where
author == copyright holder). This claim
On Jan 2, 2008 4:04 PM, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the WTFPL is exactly what you are looking for. It meets all your
requirements, is DFSG-free, and several Debian packages are already
Heh. I'd not come across that one. (Text is at
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:51:52PM +0100, Joakim Olsson wrote:
Hey! Would it be legal if I made a distro based on Debian which uses
the same repositories and then release it to the public?
Can't see any reason why not. That's part of the point of free
The main reasons not to do so
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:50:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not
the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to
satisfy my request, and the web server is operated by the copyright
holder of the software (or
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:02:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
If this is the case, may I claim that I am a lawful acquirer of the
copy that consists of network packets? At that point, I may claim
that the law allows me to create a copy onto my hard-drive because
it's necessary for the use of
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Specifically for computer programs, some jurisdictions recognize the
right to load and execute a program as an exclusive right of the
copyright holder. The 1991 EU Copyright Directive for instance explicitly
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if a lawful acquirer is someone who has a right to use it,
why would the Directive need to spell out they have the right to use it?
Well, quite. That's probably why the UK implementation hides it away
in section 50C under the bland
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen cases or commentary on this point either. I suppose
it wouldn't be worth the lawsuit. Even if my interpretation were to
prevail, all it gets someone is the right to execute the software
on the one computer he downloaded
On 20/12/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to people
who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and 13 restate
the same concept).
This goes beyond what copyright laws (at least in some jurisdictions)
On 19/12/2007, Adam C Powell IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The preamble is:
In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like
with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE
Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged to
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:47:26PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote:
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not explicitly
reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
The text of the licence is at:
Looking at some of
On 10/12/2007, Alessandro De Zorzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PHAMM USE LOGO LICENSE
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Phamm
project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.
Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I
don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other
people seem to agree with me that it should be changed.
I'm aware that the licensing position
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:34:45PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The whole reason the licensing of the Debian logos is being changed
is because the previous licensing made them unsuitable for use
within the main archive. This is generally acknowledged as a bug,
but shipping the official Debian
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:36:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The license on the specification does not permit redistribution, so
it's not even suitable for non-free.
Mmmmh, it seems that copying is allowed
copying != distribution
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is
*incompatible* with french law?!?
I gather that one reason for some of the changes in GPL v2 (in
particular the change from distribute to propogate/convey) was to
On 06/12/2007, John Leuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to ask if the following license meets the DFSG. Clause ii
of the license says that the license is terminated if you sue any
I don't think that in itself makes the licence non-free (the CDDL
includes a similar provision
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen wrote:
So an interactive AGPL program *must* have a prominent way of giving
information to the user. This breaks for any server where the return
format is restricted (web servers should not insert content on
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:40:43PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which
they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on
which the Mugshot
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:36:53AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that the original question was more about the DFSG-freeness
of the AMQP specification itself, rather than about the possibility
of developing DFSG-free programs which follow the specification...
I'm not sure how one would
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:04:43AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
For instance: from a quick glance, I couldn't find any permission to
distribute modified versions of the specification (even under a
different name). If there's no such permission, then the
specification fails DFSG#3/DFSG#4 ...
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:18:54PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal
requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK
because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act)
...unless it was a
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:04:59PM +0100, Heikki Henriksen wrote:
However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a
look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to
confirm or disapprove of my conclusion.
[Lots of interesting but
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:23:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
If problem is only modification right, why not uploading to non-free?
That is certainly one option, but that may be over-cautious based on
the previous discussion on this thread.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 01:00:08AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Wait: the content and output of these programs is here licensed
under the terms of CC-by-nc-sa-v2.0 (which is utterly non-free).
What does this mean? Does the content mean the programs
themselves? Or something else (in that case,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:11:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Gunnar Wolf:
2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license
regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any
purpose and without charge'. How would you interpret this?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:57:21AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
- Adobe PostScript AFM Files: may be used, copied, and distributed for
any purpose and without charge, with or without modification,
provided that all copyright notices are retained; that the AFM files
are not distributed
However I don't think there is anything copyrightable in these files;
they only contain series of numbers that describe the mappings.
I don't see any reason in principle why series of numbers that
describe the mappings couldn't be protected by copyright. Could you
provide more details of why
On 28/11/2007, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on a quick look, these files establish a correspondence between
different character set encodings. Copyright protects creative
expression. What is the creative part of this mapping? I can see two
possible bases: character selection
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
FWIW, I believe a search of debian-legal archives will show that we've come
to the same conclusion before about copyrightability of non-creative
databases, and are already shipping a number of these in Debian.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
Now that I think of it, quoting a copyrighted material doesn't give you
free material: you're not allowed to modify this quoted part, or you
would denature the original work, which is in utter violation of the
copyright, AFAIK. So
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 07:33:03PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
However as already written, upstream solution, as mine, suffers the
RFC parts in the function descriptions. Back in October 2006, Pierre
Thierry asked if these parts could be allowed even if not-free ,
but no one answered him.
On 21/11/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mohammad Derakhshani wrote:
This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan.
Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in
the Public Domain.
On 20/11/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker layer
and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never
*directly* interacts with public users remotely through a computer
On 20/11/2007, Iain Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing we did not change is the phrase interacting with [the
software] remotely through a computer network. Many commenters
expressed concern that this would include not only traditional GUIs
that users manipulate for web-based
On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two
things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and
links... and the apache server by means of HTTP requests. It's the
server which then goes and talks
On 20/11/2007, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are also examples where a company did not do anything until they
were served with legal papers. If you are only going to resort to
community pressure, then you might as well just make it a non-binding
request rather than a legal
On 19/11/2007, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is only a small part of Urheberrecht from what I can tell. What you mean
is what the law calls Urheberpersöhnlichkeitsrecht, which is only three
short passages in the Inhalt des Urheberrechts part of the law,
directly followed by a
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
Thanks for the heads-up.
Do you (or anyone else) happen to know
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The term user is not clearly defined. If I get an access denied
error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When
I visit a portal, am I a user of the browser? Of the portal
application, as well? Of the
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:56:23PM +, John Halton wrote:
Anyway, it's a cost (a significant one, in some cases) associated with
running the modified version of the Program.
No, it's a cost associated with *modifying* the program, as is the
cost of supplying the source code under
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:26:53PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
And, of course, web applications are often a large set of scripts...
dozens upon dozens of individual scripts. If I write a single new
script that adds some level of functionality, but in no way changes
anything else to the
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker
layer and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never
*directly* interacts with public users remotely through a computer
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 01:45:24PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071117 23:55]:
In addition, according to other posters in this thread the term
Urheberrecht is better translated as author's rights.
I think the only usefull general translation is copyright
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own
copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable
under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this
combination, everything is ok for
On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed GPL is a license not a
contract folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense
[lots and lots of case citations]
It may or may not be correct, but I don't see
On 15/11/2007, Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't see a difference. if any part of the package requires access
to non-free data to function correctly, then the entire package should
be considered to depend on non-free.
this is different from the compiz situation where the
On 15/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You first need to be very carefull to find out the license for this
software. It does not mention the GPL version number, which makes
it hard to find the authors will.
Given the fact that a lot of the files have not been touched since
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:09:04PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I think that being a lawyer you will agree that existing version or
later is *at most* a permission given by the original licensor to
direct licensees (i.e. parties entering version two contract) to
SUBLICENSE (licensees can
On 13/11/2007, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yves Combe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes?
Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive.
To understand whether there's a license conflict, there needs to be an
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:20:53PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
does getweb function correctly if the external files are unable to
be downloaded? if the answer is no, then the script must be
considered to depend on those files. and since those external files
contain non-free data, then the
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
I'm inclined to agree (though open to persuasion otherwise).
There seem to be two main positions one could take on this:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Otherwise, if moral rights are *that* restrictive, it may be
*impossible* (for software developed in jurisdictions with so strong
moral rights) to really comply with DFSG#5 and DFSG#6, since,
despite whatever the license may
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:55:53AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked with
When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be directly
or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:16PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Anyway, I feel you miss the point where someone who licenses their
software under a license with an ASP-fix clause does not want to
prevent their consumers (the service providers) from making money,
any more than Linus Torvalds
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Apologies if this is the wrong place to report this. I'm reporting this
here only because I thought this is also the place to bring to notice legal
problems in Debian. Should I file a Debian bug?
Have you checked the contents
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:32:08AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
the first is that packages in main should not have any dependencies
on non-free software. however, debian policy is not entirely clear
on the issue. section 2.2.1 says ... the packages in main must not
require a package outside
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
This is not really the case.
As long as you change the license
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 09:01:48PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
This is where the concept of moral rights comes from. US copyright
law doesn't recognize moral rights (except for some limited cases
like sculptures) but European author's rights are strong on
What Stephen said. It may suggest a degree of ambivalence towards the
*spirit* of the GPL, but it doesn't affect the legal position. Ditto
the irritating 'please register this product' box that appears when
you install or upgrade vbox.
On 09/11/2007, Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I apologised to Joerg at one point for cc-ing him as well as the
list and he said that's what he wanted anyway.
On 09/11/2007, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:27:55 +1100, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those following along with this thread, Jörg
The box popped up on my last upgrade (to 1.5.2). Perhaps I should file
it as a bug.
I know it doesn't make the software non-free; it's just a bit jarring
in the context of a free system.
On 09/11/2007, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* John Halton:
What Stephen said. It may suggest
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to
appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:44:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 11/8/07, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is
being used in such a way that the GPL would require it to be licensed
under the GPL. I'm
On 07/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL forbids GPL code to
appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be
On 07/11/2007, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First time I've seen TINLA used with IAAL instead of IANAL.
Well, really it's the IAALs who need to worry about making that clear
more than the IANALs.
:) Hello John, nice to meet you.
Thanks for the welcome. :-)
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo