On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
*BSD
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
no one is allowed to get
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
BSD/ISC code.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Theodore Tso writes:
Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
Do you think
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.
Number 1, some of the
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
The only remaining issue is whether Nick Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
The main reason of Theo's message,
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:17:53AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other
8 matches
Mail list logo
