On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 10:00:22PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri writes:
> > Is there a reason why debian will not distribute it in the non-free dir
> > in package format?
>
> Some developer would have to package it and then apply to UW for
> permission. So far as I know no one has
> Can some one send me a copy of this license?
I posted this here once, but you must've missed it Paul. Here is
Obsidian's license:
- - - Snip - - -
Copyright
BaseSoftware is under GPL (GNU Public License).
The source code is distributed together with the object code for your
convenien
Can some one send me a copy of this license?
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 3 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia writes:
> > This sounds a lot like
> [GPL splash screen clause]
>
> Notice the 'if'
I'd like to know more about this. I'm aware of ocs, and their bundle of
web based office stuff. It's good stuff, what are the legal concerns
here? I'd really like to see this bundle in debian...
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
htt
> Thus the program's output is html and the GPL restriction/addition is a
> hypertext link on the login screen of the system and a similar link in
> the about screen. This link points to ocs' own web page.
So the restriction is on the output of the programs?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joh
> If he's simply trying to keep his name and copyright from being removed from
> the about screen, or prevent links to the about screen from being removed,
> this clause is probably unneccessary.
I should explain more. The author's purpose, I'm relatively sure, is to
get a bit of attention/cre
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> This sounds a lot like
[GPL splash screen clause]
Notice the 'if's in the GPL clause. If my derivative of a GPL program is
either non-interactive or displays no announcement, I need not display a
GPL announcement. I am free to use bits of emacs in a daemon or embedded
s
Randy Edwards quotes:
> The source code is distributed together with the object code for your
> convenience. You may update the code and contribute back to the master
> project.
He would seem to be saying that you may not distribute derivatives, but may
only send them to him. Non-free.
> You may
On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 05:46:08PM -0500, Randy Edwards wrote:
> > These licenses are close to the 'edge' of what we consider free.
>
>Yes, I know what you mean. IMHO, it's a contrib or non-free type
> package but I just wanted to get some more feedback on this. Here's the
> appropriate chun
I'm on it. "Hey, dub dub dub dub"
Just kidding. UW usually takes a while to respond. They told me that
distribution is ok if I append the letter "L" to the of the file (i.e.
pine-396L_i386.deb. And some legal disclaimer. In the dir where pine
will live in debian.org's site, probably a P
Remco Blaakmeer writes:
> He has permission to distribute those .debs, yes. But what about anyone
> he gives the .debs to? Do they have the same permission?
No. That's one of the reasons pine is non-free.
> If not, the .debs cannot be put on any FTP site.
Obviously, he has to get permission for
11 matches
Mail list logo
