* MJ Ray:
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
[1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html
I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as you noted) for reasons
similar to the old
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?
This is how I think it *might* (as written previously, I'm unsure):
1. what is meant by entering into a separate written license agreement?
2. is it the same licence if it's the original+total donation
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder
will terminate:
[...]
(c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the
term of this License, commence an action
allan1956 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By the way; the OSI has approved the CDDL as being complaint with thier
guidelines, which I beleive are similar to DFSG, so inclusion of the
FAR/DFAR clause doesn't seem to be a problem.
The failed Open Source Initiative uses a definition, not guidelines,
and seems
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* MJ Ray:
of clauses 4 (automatic donation to upstream),
[...] You retain your exploitation rights, you only
grant upstream a free license. This is just a form of copyleft, only
that the source license is granted to upstream, not the party that
receives the
Thanks for some insights between OSI and DFSG
I certianly didn't mean to imply that DFSG would accept just because OSI
did.
From a process and end-goal perspective they appear to be different
Though from a legal perspective I respect rossen (who has left OSI) and
assume his evaluation that the
allan1956 writes:
Thanks for some insights between OSI and DFSG
I certianly didn't mean to imply that DFSG would accept just because OSI
did.
From a process and end-goal perspective they appear to be different
Though from a legal perspective I respect rossen (who has left OSI) and
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
also fail DFSG [...]
I think the MPL is an unsettled
On Thursday 06 July 2006 17:36, MJ Ray wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
also fail DFSG, and I would argue that QPL has been settled as
10 matches
Mail list logo
