-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
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
Hi,
I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask
a question, which is already answered.
I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html
Stephan Michels writes:
Hi,
I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask
a question, which is already answered.
I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
http://www-128.ibm.com
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:10:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on
action taken not involving the covered work?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:18:17PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting
litigation.
That's not a
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
software.
That might make it incompatible with
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:45:40PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Gah. I really have to read more carefully. I read the license again,
and it says that you have to sue a Contributor or sue about a patent
related to the Program. So if SCO had distributed stuff under the IBM
CPL,
They may very
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 07:48:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On May 17, 2004, at 19:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
IIRC, jury trials are only a Constitutional right where *criminal*
proceedings are concerned, not for civil suits.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on
action taken not involving the covered work?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut this
Walter Landry wrote:
But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
other.
Both sides waiving the right to a jury trial? Yes, it doesn't necessarily
favor one party over the other. (Neither does choice of venue, which we also
Don't Like.) I still think it's non-free; I mean, gee,
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 06:15:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
other.
Both sides waiving the right to a jury trial? Yes, it doesn't necessarily
favor one party over the other. (Neither does choice of venue,
On May 17, 2004, at 19:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
IIRC, jury trials are only a Constitutional right where *criminal*
proceedings are concerned, not for civil suits.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled
this license non-free: Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who
wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the
software.
Absolutely. I don't see why I
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.
That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
No. I didn't
On May 13, 2004, at 19:06, MJ Ray wrote:
Can we reasonably expect that anyone licensing us some patents in
order to use their software has such patents? If not, why don't they
declare that instead of licensing a nothing to us?
I doubt IBM knows which patents it has regarding most of the
On 2004-05-14 00:33:53 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Free software licences should not contaminate other software,
remember?
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here. [...]
It imposes
Summary: we are being offered a non-free patent licence which may or
may not be required, which is a different case to being offered no
patent licence for no known relevant patents.
On 2004-05-14 02:12:12 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Consider what we would say if we were
On 2004-05-14 03:28:02 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you prefer that the license, like most earlier Free Software
licenses, say nothing at all about patents in order to remain free,
while IBM retains the freedom to sue you for infringing their patents
*whether or not* you
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here. [...]
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
software.
That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Summary: we are being offered a non-free patent licence which may or
may not be required, which is a different case to being offered no
patent licence for no known relevant patents.
It's not clear to me that this patent license is
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
We insist that licenses be perpetual unless terminated for
non-compliance Branden Robinson during the LaTeX discussions
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00108.html -- Now, the
IBM patent licence terminates if you don't
On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
software.
That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical
characteristic of many
On 2004-05-14 10:58:00 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, you can't base that claim on the assertion that the license
is non-free. Contaminating other software would make the license
non-free, but the converse is not necessarily true.
Does this post stating truisms mean
On 2004-05-14 11:03:41 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that accepting non-free patent licenses is a useful
way to
defend free software.
Then why would suing IBM over patent license violations matter for
free software?
The wording is a little vague: a patent
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents applicable to some other
software. [...]
It
@ 14/05/2004 07:03 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
We insist that licenses be perpetual unless terminated for
non-compliance Branden Robinson during the LaTeX discussions
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00108.html -- Now, the
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a patent in a counterclaim?
What does this have to do with free software?
Raul Miller wrote:
* The license doesn't discrimate against people, groups or fields of
endeavor. [We do not recognize people wanting to enforce particular
intellectual property claims as a field of endeavor, or the GPL wouldn't
be free.]
It's the lack of particularity which makes this
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.
That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
No. I didn't notice that earlier (mostly because I only
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents
are involved.
So the IBM Public License patent licence is some kind of
self-contaminating. Is that as non-free as a self-contaminating
copyright licence? Does self-contamination count as contaminating
other licences by imposing restrictions on them that aren't in their
licences?
Are there patents
On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents applicable to some other
software. [...]
[...] This has the effect of a patent
cross-license: Don't sue
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents applicable to some other
Public License is also the license for Postfix
(my own mailer of choice, and part Debian/main), I would prefer that
any concerns about the license be resolved rather than left hanging.
(I realize that's not incompatible with what Frank said.)
2) If the author is issuing the software under the IBM
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in
a position of strength if software patents are involved.
I don't think I agree. At least, not yet.
In reading over this license, I see a number of clauses designed to
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce some other patent
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a patent in a counterclaim?
What does this have to do with free software?
Why should this
other licenses, which say nothing about patents, and
therefore imply We may have patents, and we may sue you at any time
just for using the software.? If we rule the IBM Public License to be
non-free, then all licenses that say nothing about patents should also
be ruled non-free.
Also, note
On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
cases
above, terminate?
This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from
all
of the software's contributors not to sue you
On 2004-05-13 18:12:32 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a
patent in a counterclaim?
On 2004-05-13 18:24:21 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Also, note that this license isn't saying We license you these
patents,
..., but instead We license you whatever patents we may or may not
have over this software, Like any other piece of software, it
may
or may not
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sure, but a patent licence might not be needed because there are no
patents covering the software. If there are patents covering it, then
having no patent licence = non-free.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple -- the U.S. patent office
What does this have to do with free software?
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Free software licences should not contaminate other software, remember?
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here.
All I see is statements saying
it the
IBM Public License. Also the upgrade clause is insane if the
original author isn't IBM.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the cases
above, terminate?
This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from all
of the software's contributors
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in
Hi.
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
archives about it. The findings were confusing:
- There are many discussions (e.g. [2], [3]) about the patent
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
archives about it. The findings were confusing
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
Since the license
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
Since the license included some suspicios
/):
The ICU project is licensed under the IBM Public License, which has
been approved by the Open Source Initiative.
So I don't expect problems for inclusion in Debian. Or should I?
Also, if that license is OK, should I package it with ICU, or should I try
to get it included in base-files?
Thanks
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:34:16PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote:
Also, if that license is OK, should I package it with ICU, or should I try
to get it included in base-files?
Why would you include it in base-files? It's not exactly a common license.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http/ftp:
Why would you include it in base-files? It's not exactly a
common license.
I'm just asking :) It's not a common license but the number of licenses that
Debian agrees with is not that big either, so it may be a good idea to put
them here. That will also help new maintainers know which license
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:41:32PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote:
I'm just asking :) It's not a common license but the number of licenses that
Debian agrees with is not that big either, so it may be a good idea to put
them here.
Actually, the number of licenses Debian agrees with is pretty large.
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought I shared that meaning with everyone else on the list.
I sometimes see the need to make things very clear because there are people
on the list with widely differing levels of sophistication as far as license
interpretation is concerned.
Henning Makholm wrote:
Hmm, but it does not say it must be made available _solely_ under
this Agreement.
An interesting word game, but I think that a permission to relicense
a work under arbitrary terms needs to be a little more explicit than
this.
Well... you don't _need_ permission to
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm wrote:
Hmm, but it does not say it must be made available _solely_ under
this Agreement.
An interesting word game, but I think that a permission to relicense
a work under arbitrary terms needs to be a little more explicit than
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:22:36PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Yes: the IBM license lets a contributor put another license on the
program, but doesn't let it be transitive -- which excludes the GPL.
I was wondering if there were any *other* issues besides that one.
Bruce had indicated that
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This clearly states that the parts I reuse from the IBM-licenses
program must be GPL-licensed when I distribute my program. Which IBM
does not allow me to.
Yes: the IBM license lets a contributor put another
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the latest version of the IBM license still require one to waive their
right to a jury trial?
Yes. So does potentially a other free licenses that require that
disputes are to be settled in a specific court in a country where
juries are not used
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No it does not. It only allows changes of license for *binaries*.
Thanks.
I apologize. [I'd overlooked the object code form bit.]
--
Raul
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the latest version of the IBM license still require one to waive their
right to a jury trial?
Hmm.. yeah. The most recent copy I have does, and that is another
conflict with the GPL.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Henning Makholm wrote:
No it does not. It only allows changes of license for *binaries*.
It spells this out loud and clear:
| When the Program is made available in source code form:
| a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
| b) a copy of this Agreement must be
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm wrote:
It spells this out loud and clear:
| When the Program is made available in source code form:
| a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
| b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy
But certainly you can put _your_own_contribution_ under any number of
licenses, though this might not effect the licensing of the combined
product. That at least facilitates writing out the non-GPL part over time.
Thanks
Bruce
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But certainly you can put _your_own_contribution_ under any number of
licenses,
Certainly.
When I speak of GPL compatibility I refer to the possibility of taking
some code produced by IBM and incorporating it into GNU foo. I thought
I shared that meaning with
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that this quote uses the phrase licensed as a whole.
If you continue reading (top of the next page), you'll see:
I don't see how that section applies to the scenario we're discussing
(a program that reuses some code from an IBM-licensed program and
But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[IPL is not GPL compatible]
But I'm curious about these other conflicts. I've not read the license
closely enough to pin them down or to rule them out. Having someone
else's insight on the matter would be illuminating.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the situation where I take some code from a GPL'ed program and
some code from a program under the IBM license, add some of my own and
wish to distribute the result.
Now, since my program is a
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the situation where I take some code from a GPL'ed program and
some code from a program under the IBM license, add some of my own and
wish to distribute the result.
Now, since my program is a deriviate of the GPL'ed program, I can
to the terms of their agreement. I am
not
sure if this helps. but If you would like to provide
me the exact wording of the obligation I may be able to help you further.
Also,
just wondering does this have anything to do
with the IBM Public License?
I'll ask IBM to clear up that language. They've been very cooperative of late.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
! I don't see where the license makes that kind of distinction.
!
! Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
! [Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed.]
!
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[commenting my reasons why I think the patent clauses in IBM's license
does not cause it to fail the DFSG].
Right.
On the other hand, when an author has asked us not to distribute some
piece of software, we've not distributed it. This is basic
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not meant as an argument that IPL is not DFSG-compiant, is it?
Correct: it's not that sort of argument.
--
Raul
(scrawling on the screen of my Palm-Pilot)
You could make it GPL compatible.
The quoted clause applies to parallel contributors and does not prevent
subsequent contributors from continuing to honor your license.
Thanks
Bruce
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Please Cc
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(scrawling on the screen of my Palm-Pilot)
You could make it GPL compatible. The quoted clause applies to
parallel contributors and does not prevent subsequent contributors
from continuing to honor your license.
I don't see where the license makes that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kragen Sitaker) writes:
So simply because the copyright on a piece of software is licensed
under the IPL does not mean that the patents in it are licensed in
DFSG-compliant ways; it seems to me that the patents could be licensed
(by IBM) in ways that violate section 3 of
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
6/14/99
THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS IBM PUBLIC
LICENSE (AGREEMENT). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
1. DEFINITIONS
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my reading, the DFSG does not concern itself with hypothetical
patent licenses. No declaration from a free software author can
guarantee that there'll never be patent problems, so if the DFSG
were to require such guarantee Debian would suddenly fit
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed.]
This is the new Postfix license. Is it GPL-compatible?
I don't think so.
A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form
under its own license agreement, provided that:
a) it complies
Andreas Jellinghaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
6/14/99
Looks DFSG-ok to me.
maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main
AFAIK Debian as a project does not normally make formal statements
about whether
I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
versions will get sued in the
Kragen Sitaker:
I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
versions
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
6/14/99
Looks DFSG-ok to me.
maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main
from non-free, after the licence has changed. it's my favorite mta :-)
thanks for your work.
andreas
Andreas Jellinghaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And here it is. Reactions are welcome, before we apply this license
to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
6/14/99
Looks DFSG-ok to me.
If Recipient institutes patent litigation against
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
6/14/99
THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS IBM PUBLIC
LICENSE (AGREEMENT). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT
are welcome, before we apply this license
to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
Wietse
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
6/14/99
THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS IBM PUBLIC
LICENSE
FYI
I'm not on debian-legal, sorry if it has been posted already :/
- Forwarded message from Wietse Venema [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Subject: Please review: Official IBM Public License
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Postfix users)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
from postfix mailing list. i would like to know if this licence is dfsg ok.
andreas
--
And here it is. Reactions are welcome, before we apply this license
to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
Wietse
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT
According to a slashdot comment, a new version of Jikes will be released
soon under the IBM Public License v1.0
(http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/srcDownload/license.html); this license is
already used for the IBM Open Visualization Data Explorer
(http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/).
Can someone go
I'm told the visual explorer license was rushed out and won't be the last word.
Bruce
Ben Pfaff writes:
This clause in particular I find confusing. I'm not at all sure what it
means:
It means that Sun can put the Program in Solaris and distribute it under
the Solaris license, but that in doing so they agree to take responsibility
for any lawsuits that result.
--
John Hasler
Joseph Carter writes:
Only the lawyers at IBM could take a two paragraph BSDish license and
make 9 pages out of it.
Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
license, but you must make source available under the IBM license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcelo E. Magallon writes:
I browsed IBM's site, but I couldn't find any reference that claims this
license is OpenSource...
I don't know if it is Open Source, but IMHO it is free. I don't like that
final sentences about compliabce with laws, but I think we can live with
it. I *really* like
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:46:13PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Only the lawyers at IBM could take a two paragraph BSDish license and
make 9 pages out of it.
Much closer to GPL than BSD, IMHO. You can distribute binaries under your
license, but you must make source available under the IBM
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
