On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I know what please means. What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who characterizes the
Debian Project as asserting this is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I know what please means. What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who
* Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040608 09:14]:
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who characterizes the
Debian Project as asserting this is wrong, and may be being deliberately
deceptive.
That was not what I meant to say. However, someone did suggest that
such a request
On 2004-06-08 08:14:13 +0100 Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] However, someone did suggest that
such a request would make the program non-free. [...]
Do you mean Josh Triplett? He accepted Lewis Jardine's correction. Why won't
you?
I understand that it could be
an
This is not the first time that this has come up. Perhaps there could
be a FAQ at www.debian.org/legal?
Great idea.
Perhaps the draft FAQ I started could be moved?
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
(Just added this question to it.)
It is in pretty good shape, with contributions from
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I know what please means. What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
There's nothing terrible about asking for credit for your
work. There's something terribly wrong with requiring credit for your
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
Måns Rullgård wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive,
posted mailed
Matthieu Delahaye wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here would do so, just so you
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
On 2004-06-05 09:49:38 +0100 Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't that what the fuss about the obnoxious advertising clause of
the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
No, they require specific advertising as a condition of permission. A simple
disjunct polite request for any
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :-)
Isn't
On 2004-06-05 06:49:19 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think this license is actually legally nearly equivalent to giving
the
work to the public domain.
I believe that is the intention. For some reason, I can find very
little information on public domain grants in England
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Isn't that what the fuss about the obnoxious advertising clause of
the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
with those licenses.
I thought the
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
restrictions.
That's the not quite part. It's almost entirely irrelevant because
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:42:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
restrictions.
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
license is not usable to be uploaded under Debian.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthieu Delahaye) wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
would work for any
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to this site seems non-free to
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to this
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:29AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered
On Jun 4, 2004, at 13:53, Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me
to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability
30 matches
Mail list logo
