Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
> Frankly, I don't understand the full effects of this clause of the
> license.
As far as I understand it, it is simply a convoluted version of
"If you like, you may offer warranty
The "Commercial Contributions" section is intended to protect contributors
(including IBM) from other contributors doing something that gets them
sued. For example, contributor A sells software _with_a_warranty_. The
software fails, causing damage to life and property. Customer sues contributor
A _
I think where we left the discussion was that it was DFSG-compliant but
not GPL-compatible.
If you have real problems with this license, please get back to me. I worked
with the IBM folks on this version and can bring you their concerns if
necessary.
Thanks
Bruce
Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
Frankly, I don't understand the full effects of this clause of the
license. Other than that, it looks like a pretty good license to me,
and unless I missed something as I was skimming through it, it's also
DFSG compliant.
As many of you know, Jikes has now been released under the new
IBM Public License Version 1.0. I have seen this new license discussed
on Debian-Legal in recent weeks, but the end decision seemed to me
inconclusive on whether or not this qualified as DFSG-free.
The subject is no longer merely acad
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "If you use this software, you must pet a cat" fails the
> DFSG on this point.
> But "If you distribute this software without source code, you must
> accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any third party, for a
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 06:20:45PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> I've packaged the international kernel patch for non-us but there is
> some problems with the copyrights:
>
> Case 1:
> +/* This is an independent implementation of the MARS encryption*/
> +/* algorithm designed by a team at
From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But "If you distribute this software without source code, you must
> accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
> physically performing source distribution, a compl
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> I wasn't thinking of the fields of endeavour clause, but simply this one:
>
> Free Redistribution
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the softwar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As an example, I don't think the DFSG (taken literally) has room for the
> > GPL's requirements for distributing source code.
>
> The only field of endeavor you could contrive to argue this point would
> be one that would ta
10 matches
Mail list logo
