Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The license saying "don't make profit directly out of selling mgetty" has no
> bearing on the right the license already granted to distribute mgetty, since
> you don't have the right to sell mgetty itself in the first place.
> Don't say "but the user
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > What is the difference between "charge a fee for the physical act of
> > > transferring a copy" and "sell a copy"?
>
> > To sell a copy is to give the recipient all rights to the
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> To sell a copy is to give the recipient all rights to the software. The
> result would be that the person you sold the software to would own it.
Go into a bookstore, pick up a copy of a book, take it over to the
salesclerk and say "Will you sell me this copy?". The cler
I decided not to package or help this project because of the original license
-- "either GPL your code or dont use Olex". The author is a good guy and is
just trying to promote free software and make sure his work is not used to make
proprietary software.
I think this license is free enough. The
[#include ]
Shaleh hinted that I might want to look at the Olex license. It
does put some restriction on output - which, differently from
the "buttonware" discussion a while ago, seems legitimate to me
since Olex output is full of code written by the Olex author.
So, this is the actual LICENSE.GEN
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:
> Ysgrifennodd Jules Bean ar Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:33:08PM +:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:
> >
> > > goodies on a CD-ROM collection or whatever, but if you sell @code{mgetty}
> > > bundled with a faxmodem as
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What is the difference between "charge a fee for the physical act of
> > transferring a copy" and "sell a copy"?
> To sell a copy is to give the recipient all rights to the software.
An interesting interpretation. This would mean the Microsoft are
Henning Makholm writes:
> What is the difference between "charge a fee for the physical act of
> transferring a copy" and "sell a copy"?
> I can choose to give you a copy of, say, gcc. I can choose not to. I can
> promise you that I'll choose to give you a copy if you give me money in
> return. Am
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 03:23:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ---
> > You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> > you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
> > --
>
> > This is the only m
Jules Bean writes:
> Indeed the artistic and GPL make the same restriction.
I wrote:
> The GPL does not make any such restriction. The Artistic does include a
> similar one, but converts it to a request in the definitions.
Jules Bean quotes from the GPL:
> You may charge a fee for the physical a
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ---
> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
> --
> This is the only mention of fees in the main portion of the text. Since
> it doesn't give permissi
On 26 Jan 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> > Indeed the artistic and GPL make the same restriction.
>
> The GPL does not make any such restriction. The Artistic does include a
> similar one, but converts it to a request in the definitions.
---
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring
Jules Bean writes:
> There is no problem with the payment details.
True.
> Indeed the artistic and GPL make the same restriction.
The GPL does not make any such restriction. The Artistic does include a
similar one, but converts it to a request in the definitions.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I believe this does not meet the DSFG.
> There is no problem with the payment details. Indeed the artistic and GPL
> make the same restriction.
I think the parts that make it non DFSG-free are
| if you sell @code{mgetty} bundled with a faxmodem as ``u
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is no problem with the payment details. Indeed the artistic and GPL
make the same restriction. However, this doesn't give permission to
modify. Does some other file give this permission?
Yes, the complete license was not quoted.
--
"...In
15 matches
Mail list logo
