*
gives him permission.
I can only combine works licensed under this license with works that
allow changing to gpl2 *and* allow changing back to gpl3 *and* allow
changing back to gpl3. That's what 4d says.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader
+).
Is this intentional?
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal
, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2.
Whether or not that's a good idea is a different matter.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
/* | Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software | */
/* | and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby | */
^^^
/* | granted, provided that the above
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[pgp5]
Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it
reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure.
I think that bug has been fixed in 5.0-6:
* Reading from /dev/random now really produces random data.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Christian Kurz wrote:
On [15/12/03 1:59], Peter Palfrader wrote:
| Authors: Donald Duck, Daisy Duck
|
| Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Donald Duck
| 2000, 2002 Daisy Duck
|
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is
available via the Internet at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/sources/.
You may find the sources for the
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Darryl Palmer wrote:
Looking at the GPL it has this statement:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
Debian to distribute packaged binaries
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
Take out the RD and personal use grants. Does it still comply with
the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more freedom to
make the software DFSG-nonfree?
Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Andrea Borgia wrote:
On 9 Nov 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
TBBPine prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
My
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear.
and then later in the DEC description
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:17:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as
the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net
I'm wondering if
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is
mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
Why is this obviously OK? DFSG #4
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex
behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_PRELOAD
variable, so you do not need to hack libc.so to achieve anything.
But if there was a bug in libc I could fix it and
Hi!
I'm currently packagin mixmaster 2.04b45 which is under the gpl, no
problem there :).
Unfortunaly newer versions of mixmaster are not released under the gpl
any more.
One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
paragraph (1.b.iii):
[you may modify and
On Tue, 09 May 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
This is similar to the Apple notification clause. If Anonymizer Inc. goes
out of business or decides to take down their mail server you can no longer
satisfy this term and thus can't modify the software at all. Notification
clauses have been argued
19 matches
Mail list logo
