Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it is still allowed to distribute derived works. I agree. W

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it is still allowed to distribute derived works. I agree.

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:43:50PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:27:59PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > > > Has anything changed about MNGs in last 3 months ??? > > > > Support for mng was added to a recent build of mozilla within the past month > or so. Ful

Re: [OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?

Scripsit "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public > License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? Both are possible, and it is conceivable that RMS liked the ambiguity whan he picked the term. > Does the phrase as a whol

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL?

I believe clause 3 is compatible with the GPL, because the GPL has a stricter requirement. Clauses 4 and 5 are incompatible with the GPL because they are stated as conditions of the license for the copyright. If similar requirements were based on the publicity right (which exists in certain juris

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:43:50PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:27:59PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > > > Has anything changed about MNGs in last 3 months ??? > > > > Support for mng was added to a recent build of mozilla within the past month > or so. Fu

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public > License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with > AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it > is still allowed to distrib

[OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?

Hi, my apologies about the offtopic, but I hope someone on the list can help me with this. What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? I think the name in English for those things is, respectively, Noun Phrase and Adjeti

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, I am adding Richard Stallman to the CC list because I am sure he knows more about the precise interaction between copyright licenses and trademark licenses and how they interact with the GPL. [Context: Discussion about the new Apache License 1.1 which doesn't contain the advertising clause an

Re: [OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?

Scripsit "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public > License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? Both are possible, and it is conceivable that RMS liked the ambiguity whan he picked the term. > Does the phrase as a who

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL?

I believe clause 3 is compatible with the GPL, because the GPL has a stricter requirement. Clauses 4 and 5 are incompatible with the GPL because they are stated as conditions of the license for the copyright. If similar requirements were based on the publicity right (which exists in certain juri

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org:Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public > License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with > AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it > is still allowed to distri

[OT] What does 'General Public License' mean?

Hi, my apologies about the offtopic, but I hope someone on the list can help me with this. What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? I think the name in English for those things is, respectively, Noun Phrase and Adjet

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, I am adding Richard Stallman to the CC list because I am sure he knows more about the precise interaction between copyright licenses and trademark licenses and how they interact with the GPL. [Context: Discussion about the new Apache License 1.1 which doesn't contain the advertising clause a

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:27:59PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > Has anything changed about MNGs in last 3 months ??? > Support for mng was added to a recent build of mozilla within the past month or so. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:19:44PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: > > Far simpler, then, to do as we did with GIFs: > > burn them > > burn all of them > > (http://burnallgifs.org) > > And instead move on and encourage use of vorbis files, just

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:27:59PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > Has anything changed about MNGs in last 3 months ??? > Support for mng was added to a recent build of mozilla within the past month or so. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:19:44PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: > > Far simpler, then, to do as we did with GIFs: > > burn them > > burn all of them > > (http://burnallgifs.org) > > And instead move on and encourage use of vorbis files, just

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:10:49AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > Does the GPL say anything about restrictions that other licenses may place > on the *naming* of combined works? The closest I can see is in section 6, > it says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > ex

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:19:44PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: > Far simpler, then, to do as we did with GIFs: > > burn them > > burn all of them > > (http://burnallgifs.org) > > And instead move on and encourage use of vorbis files, just as

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:10:49AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > Does the GPL say anything about restrictions that other licenses may place > on the *naming* of combined works? The closest I can see is in section 6, > it says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > e

Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 09:19:44PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: > Far simpler, then, to do as we did with GIFs: > > burn them > > burn all of them > > (http://burnallgifs.org) > > And instead move on and encourage use of vorbis files, just as

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > But the The Apache Software License, Version 1.1, which can be found on > does NOT contain the word please. Sorry, brain fart. It's what I get for trying to attack my backlogged mail queue on a Sunday. You're right,

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org:Suggestions for wording...?])

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > But the The Apache Software License, Version 1.1, which can be found on > does NOT contain the word please. Sorry, brain fart. It's what I get for trying to attack my backlogged mail queue on a Sunday. You're right,

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

// Adding Richard to the Cc list On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:06:24PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > I recieved a few suggestions which, unfortunately, seem to be based on > > > misunderstandings of what I'm asking for. > > > > > > The license that I want should have the following features: >