Thank you for subscribing. You have now unsubscribed and no more messages will
be sent.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since someone want to package[1] Vigra library[2], I wan't to know if VIGRA
Artistic License[3] is DFSG compatible and if I can use this library in a
GPL'ed program.
As far as I can see, this licence is free, but not compatible with GPL,
because of :
4. You may otherwise modify your copy of
Scripsit Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
It's a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that there are
_other_ reasonable interpretations as well; in particular one easily
imagines a court that would find that the limited-scope identifier
defense
@ 24/09/2005 14:22 : wrote Francesco Poli :
Hi all! :)
The default LDP license v2.0 is adopted by a number of HOWTOs,
some of them currently distributed in main. The problem is: I'm
*not* conviced that such documents comply with the DFSG. I would
like to discuss the DFSG-compliance of a
@ 26/09/2005 05:28 : wrote Florent Bayle :
Since someone want to package[1] Vigra library[2], I wan't to know if
VIGRA
Artistic License[3] is DFSG compatible and if I can use this library in
a
GPL'ed program.
As far as I can see, this licence is free, but not compatible with GPL,
because of
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
2. The person making the modifications must be
identified.
Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
against the Dissident Test, but I think anonymity is necessary for
Free
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:21 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
2. The Standard Version of the Library may be distributed as part
of a collection of software, provided no more than a reasonable
copying fee is charged for the software collection.
This isn't free, as you can't sell the
Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit :
[...]
And it's not GPL-compatible at all.
Does that means that I can't use this library in a program under GPL ?
In that case, how can some GPL'ed programs be linked with Win32 libraries
under Windows ?
Sorry for these stupid
@ 26/09/2005 13:30 : wrote Florent Bayle :
Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit :
[...]
And it's not GPL-compatible at all.
Does that means that I can't use this library in a program under GPL ?
In that case, how can some GPL'ed programs be linked with Win32
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 18:27 +0200, Florent Bayle a écrit :
Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit :
[...]
And it's not GPL-compatible at all.
Does that means that I can't use this library in a program under GPL ?
In that case, how can some GPL'ed programs be linked
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
@ 26/09/2005 05:28 : wrote Florent Bayle :
...
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you
do at least ONE of the following:
a. place your modifications
stament makes it quite clear that that is allowed.
s/stament/statement/
[EMAIL PROTECTED], created by the gimp.
s/by/using/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:09:08 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 24/09/2005 14:22 : wrote Francesco Poli :
[...]
Thanks for your analysis.
P.S.: please do not reply to me, as I didn't asked that: rather, reply
to the list only! thanks
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:33:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
2. The person making the modifications must be
identified.
Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
against the
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@ 26/09/2005 13:30 : wrote Florent Bayle :
Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit :
[...]
And it's not GPL-compatible at all.
How so? The only thing that seems to be a problem to me is this line:
Florent Bayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To make this easy, perhaps upstream can move to the clarified artistic
licence. This seems to be about equivelent to the intent of the current
licence, and is gpl-compatible according to the FSF. If it is
El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2005 a las 19:34:00 +0200, Claus Färber escribía:
a. place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
make them Freely Available, for example by allowing the
Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard
Version of
Greetings everyone
I was talking about copyright details with a friend of mine a few
minutes ago and he presented me the following scenario:
Amazon has millions of book covers in their database, most of them
having been scanned by themselves. Do they have any kind of rights over
those scans
However, this one forces modified works to be in the Public Domain, which
is nowhere near the terms of the original work.
Since this is derived from Artisic, it is assumed freely available means the
same as it does there, which includes public domain, or posting the source
publicly. The key
João Pinheiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My guess is the book covers are fair use, as they are required to allow
consumers to identify the book.
Besides, few people in their right mind would try to sue Amazon over a
scanned verseion of the cover. After all,
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I already said, I'm not so convinced that a pseudonym identifies a
person. In fact, it does (almost) the opposite, I would say.
It builds a 'fake' identity, but hides the real identity of its owner.
IMHO, it's not
21 matches
Mail list logo
