> Regarding the assignment of copyright, I took that out of the draft
> document.
Yay! I knew you were a good guy! :-)
Cheers,
- Jim
pgptBXGtMKzg2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Regarding the assignment of copyright, I took that out of the draft
document. I think that every good license should include the provision
that modifications must have the same license as the original software,
not a more restrictive license, applied to them. The GPL includes something
like this, a
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
> > this already. We also have some cases of "author rudely dropped dead
> > without first changing the copyright".
>
> This is a problem, I admit. What does the law say about copyrigh
> Well, it's fine for the author to _require_ that modifications in the
> program be returned to the author. It's just not acceptable for the
> author to not allow modifications to be distributed.
I don't think we should accept licenses that require modifications to be
returned
to the author, or
From: Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But your promise in not the point. The author wants this promise from
> everybody. It's the best way to be assured that improvements get
> distributed to everyone and not just a select group.
Well, it's fine for the author to _require_ that modifications i
> > That depends on how you look at it.
> >
> > If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
> > package then this is true.
>
> What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
> this already. We also have some cases of "author rudely dropped dead
> wi
From: Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That depends on how you look at it.
>
> If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
> package then this is true.
What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
this already. We also have some cases of "author
> > I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> > this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> > suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> > cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might l
From: Tomislav Vujec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But, do we realy distribute modified versions?
We distribute modified binary files. I've asked for an explicit permission
in the ncurses license that is something like paragraph 1 in our free
software guidelines, and Eric seems to be agreeable with that.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> > I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> > this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> > suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> > cause other than stickin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should
> relax this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not
> being suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it
> helps a
Brian White:
> I personally believe that Debian should relax
> this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might like
> to keep some me
Bruce writes, replying to Brian White:
> > I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> > this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> > suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> > cause other than sticking a
> I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might like
> to
Brian White wrote:
> I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
> this requirement about non-modifiable & redistributable code not being
> suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
> cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those
> > However now that I *have* done what I should have done two years ago
> > and familiarized myself with the license, I think that there is a
> > significant problem with the ncurses license as it stands---in that it
> > does not guarantee anyone the right to distribute modified versions.
> >
> >
16 matches
Mail list logo
