There somewhere else where I could discuss a variety of licenses? I
tried the FSF list but everyone seemed to insist GPL was the only way.
media contacts
I was saying that the core application is free software and always will be.
The client or specific user that goes for a commercial license is doing it
out of choice and not held back, oppressed, or whatever you want to label it.
They can always opt for the free version under a free software l
I think anything using this license is nonfree, name currently trademarked or
not, because it could become a trademark at a later date.
Are the Ubuntu fonts themselves then nonfree, seeing as the name is
trademarked?
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 22:47 +0100, ejectm...@me.com wrote:
> The Free Software Foundation has stated, "Our goal is a world where all
> programs are free, so that all their users are free." But thinking about a
> world where all software is free has called some serious questions into mind.
>
>
First of all, the copyright holder of "real" custom software is the company
that pays for its development. Since it is the only user, there is no
redistribution and no need to talk about licensing.
If a third-party developers retains the copyright (in the hope of selling the
same work to an
One of your important freedoms can be taken away at will via trademark law
with this license. Therefore, I would say that the license is nonfree. I
don't know what the FSF's opinion would be.
So what's the verdict? Does not allowing the original version to be renamed
make the license nonfree, or is it indeed a free software license?
> don't want to "release their custom changes to the public" (which the GPL
will
> force them to do)
Erm, no, it doesn't. The GPL requires you to distribute the program under the
GPL with the source code (or an offer to provide the source code) if you
distribute it at all, but there is no
You aren't fooling anyone if your client wants something heavily tailored to
them with custom plugins or code that are not free software. There may also
be clients who don't want to "release their custom changes to the public"
(which the GPL will force them to do) and will request a commercia
Yes, Conanical's policy might be fine. I was talking about theoretical other
policies, like Mozilla's. Also, Conanical's policy could be changed, and then
the license could be rendered effectively nonfree by that.
Thanks for the advice lembas! I Followed your links and tried some things but
still can't manage to update the dependencies for Gtk-Gnutella :-(
Anyone have an easy step by step solution to this? If there is one? I'm sure
it would be handy if you wanted to update other software on Trisquel to
Would this be a free software license in the absence of trademarks?
> why should it make a license non-free that it only allows use of the
> trademarks non-commercially?
Normally it wouldn't. But if the software license requires use of the same
name for unmodified versions, that combination results in freedom 2
effectively being restricted.
> Does it only
Let me quote from Ubuntu's trademark policy: "Canonical grants permission for
anyone to mirror or redistribute unmodified Ubuntu installation images,
Ubuntu software packages, and Ubuntu package archives." So there's no problem
with commercially distributing the unmodified font.
If the GPL states it's acceptable to decline to grant rights under trademark
law, why should it make a license non-free that it only allows use of the
trademarks non-commercially?
I hope that "custom license" means "free software license" to you. Otherwise
you are describing a way to use free software to fool users into proprietary
software.
The 3-Clause BSD license has the same rules where deriative works cannot use
the names to "endorse" the original project.
"(3)The name of the author may not be used to
endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission."
http://directory.fsf.org/
Based on the frequency of the news releases on its website (once a month),
MATE looks well alive.
The inclusion in Trisquel's repositories is not forecast if that is what you
wanted to know. Indeed MATE is not in Ubuntu's repositories (including that
of the upcoming 13.04 version) and Trisq
One can use Baobab too. It is a GNOME utility that is shipped in Trisquel's
default install (as far as I remember). Very convenient.
>here
http://devel.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/trisquel_6.0-20130211_amd64.iso
Oh yeah!
I hadn't read the actual license when making the previous comment, it was
purely based on this thread... mea culpa. Looks like Debian considers it
non-free FWIW because of
* the naming restrictions [1]
* .ttf files are rebuildable from source only with
the help of non-free tools [2]
[1]
ht
>On the other hand, this has made me interested in such a program that has a
good function (suggests only completely free distros) and actually works (by
asking better questions and not suggesting multiple distros). I might do that
sometime. It could even be a great excuse to learn Javascript
In a world with only free software, where all people are happy and feel
there's no need for new software to be developed, then there's no need for
new software. And that's good, people will do other things instead. But if
people want new software, then they will either write it themselves o
I just received an answer to the problem from Yahoo UK customer care, the
settings suggested work for me.
Receiving Email:
Server Type: POP
Server: pop.mail.yahoo.com (even if you have a .co.uk account)
Port: 995
Username: yahoo id without the @yahoo.co.uk (use entire email address for
ymail.
Good thinking, but the parts of the settings that are visible in Thunderbird
I entered exactly the same in Evolution. I am starting to suspect that Yahoo
for some reason have decided to block connections from anything but Outlook
or Thunderbird as they specifically say on their help page that
26 matches
Mail list logo
