On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:21:01 +0100 Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
[...]
> Thank you all for such a detailed answers!
You're welcome!
>
> I found the following in the FAQ[0]:
>
> 3.2. Is InChI open?
>
> It is intended that the source code is freely re-usable and a license
> has been developed to refl
On 02/26/2018 01:54 PM, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
> DFSG-compatible ?
>
> Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be
> applied.
> Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:49:20 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > To the extent that text is derived from the GNU LGPL, it is a copyright
> > violation:
[...]
> I showed both of those to show that the requirement has not changed
> between versions (so it is sufficient to determine
Ben Finney writes:
> To the extent that text is derived from the GNU LGPL, it is a copyright
> violation:
I didn't explain well enough why I was including some of the text.
This is from the GNU LGPL v2.1:
> Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. […]
> Everyone is permi
Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> writes:
> I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word
> copy of second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-)
To the extent that text is derived from the GNU LGPL, it is a copyright
violation:
Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation,
Mihai Moldovan writes:
> * On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> The LGPL-2.1 starts with
>>
>> | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>> | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>> ^^
>>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:51:44 +0100 Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> * On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > The LGPL-2.1 starts with
> >
> > | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> > | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> >
* On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> The LGPL-2.1 starts with
>
> | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> ^^
>
> I am therefore wondering whet
Francesco Poli writes:
> This "IUPAC/InChI-Trust InChI Licence No. 1.0" appears to have been
> created starting from the GNU LGPL v2.1, by the following steps:
The LGPL-2.1 starts with
| Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
| of this license document, but changing it is n
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:53:12 +0100 Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> On 02/26/2018 03:50 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
[...]
> > It looks a like the LGPL-2. In any event, this license is fine as is.
> > If anyone wants to make modifications that are not allowed by the
> > existing text, then they can modify
On 02/26/2018 06:03 PM, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
>> DFSG-compatible ?
>>
>> Section 2 doesn't sound very good
>
> That’s extremely interesting. Could you elaborate, please?
>
> I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like
Alex Mestiashvili writes:
> Hi,
>
> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
> DFSG-compatible ?
>
> Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be
> applied.
> Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ and
> also include the
> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
> DFSG-compatible ?
>
> Section 2 doesn't sound very good
That’s extremely interesting. Could you elaborate, please?
I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word copy of
second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-)
On 02/26/2018 03:50 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Alex Mestiashvili writes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
>> DFSG-compatible ?
>>
>> Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be
>> applied.
>> Will it be fine to simply state t
Hi,
could you please clarify if the license below can be considered
DFSG-compatible ?
Section 2 doesn't sound very good, but section 3 says that GPL-2+ may be
applied.
Will it be fine to simply state that it is licensed under GPL-2+ and
also include the original license in d/copyright ?
Thank yo
15 matches
Mail list logo
