On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:33:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Now, maybe the latter is what Trolltech *means*, but it's not what the
license *says*. When we've got representatives of the FSF asserting
that there is no fair use right to private modification because of the
_Texaco_ case,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:01:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the
Software.
This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not
distribution of
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
patches. The following restrictions
Scripsit Jakob Bohm
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading
1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified
source, if you make your modifications available under This
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a
non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial
developer of the Software to
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
because it prevents me from making modifications without granting
everyone the right to take them proprietary. However, it is hard to
pin this kind of unfreedom to a specific point in the DFSG.
Wouldn't this principle also
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the
Software.
This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not
distribution of modifications that do this. We should encourage
licensors to be more clear about
On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:06 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Fair Use does *not* allow you unlimited rights to create derivative
works. It might suck, but it just doesn't. Copyright law restricts
copying and the preparation of derivative works, even if you don't
distribute the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a
problem, even if you object to all
10 matches
Mail list logo
