On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 07:31:13PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Who? what?
I'll send you a copy of the entire thread.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Colin Watson wrote:
) Jean-Christophe Dubacq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
) >Maybe I am a bit stupid, but it only guarantees that the copyright
) >notice stays. I might have a problem with the word 'sublicense'. Does
) >this word mean that:
) >
) >- you can use the same license
> I release this software under the MIT license. (No, not the GPL
> license. Mainly because I do not quite understand the GPL license
> myself as I do with the MIT and the BSD types.)
MIT license is:
Do whatever you want with this. You can even branch proprietary
software a
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
> related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
> violated, when modified versions are distributed.
Who? what? AFAIK imapd doesn't have the same no-modification
Jean-Christophe Dubacq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe I am a bit stupid, but it only guarantees that the copyright
>notice stays. I might have a problem with the word 'sublicense'. Does
>this word mean that:
>
>- you can use the same license
>- you can use any license
>- you can use any license
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 12:01:47PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
>
> Whoa! Isn't this the program that RMS said the University of Washington
> threatened to sue them over?
That's a good question. Someone had pointed me to this program in a
message awhile back, and in a nutshell said "you're wasti
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 12:01:47PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> Whoa! Isn't this the program that RMS said the University of
> Washington threatened to sue them over?
I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright
On 2829T154235+0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> I have been looking at a piece of software which is under the MIT license.
> Its probably good enough to use for debian
It's definitely good enough for Debian.
> but I'd like to know the pros
> and cons of the MIT license when compared with
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 05:56:28PM +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> MANA is a mail and news agent for UNIX.
> Mana is based on Pine® version 3.91, and is free software.
>
> Mana is based on Pine version 3.91.
>
> All additions to the basic 3.91 version are Copyright © 1997 Free
> Software Fo
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 03:42:35PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been looking at a piece of software which is under the MIT license.
> Its probably good enough to use for debian, but I'd like to know the pros
> and cons of the MIT license when compared with GPL or BSD. I guess
I do not subscribe to these mailing-lists. You can Cc: to me, if you
want, but I am smart enought to read mailing-list archives via WWW.
* * *
I think I have found "OpenSSH of MUAs". It seems that somebody has found
last free (in the sense of Debian Free Software Guidleines and Open
Source Defin
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> LICENSE:
> Copyright (c) 2000 Mikael Johansson
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction
"Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Licenses?
> I release this software under the MIT license. (No, not the GPL
> license. Mainly because I do not quite understand the GPL license
> myself as I do with the MIT and the BSD types.)
For the almost the exact same rea
Hi,
I have been looking at a piece of software which is under the MIT license.
Its probably good enough to use for debian, but I'd like to know the pros
and cons of the MIT license when compared with GPL or BSD. I guess the
author also would like to know them, maybe he will change to GPL.
Copy of h
Many of you certainly have noticed the mess about the Python licensing.
In short words, the current owner of the Python copyright, CNRI, seems
to believe that almost all existing Python releases (1.3 up to 1.5.2)
were never really licensed to anybody (although they had a file
Misc/COPYRIGHT that i
Scripsit Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's still as bad.
I don't know how it was before, but FWIW I concur it is not DFSG-free.
--
Henning Makholm "The compile-time type checker for this
language has proved to be a valuable filter wh
Miros/law `Jubal' Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> as in Subject: field; IIRC correctly this license (look at
> http://hell.pl/baran/tek/misc/UAI-license.txt), it does not conflict
> with DFSG. I'm not sure of my English knowledge, so could somebody read
> this text and confirm its DFSG-conform
Hello,
as in Subject: field; IIRC correctly this license (look at
http://hell.pl/baran/tek/misc/UAI-license.txt), it does not conflict
with DFSG. I'm not sure of my English knowledge, so could somebody read
this text and confirm its DFSG-conformance?
best regards,
Jubal
--
[ Miros/law L Baran,
Marcus Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://squeak.org/license.html
I'm not sure we can honor the preamble:
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT "LICENSE" CAREFULLY BEFORE
DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE YOU ARE
AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERM
Hi!
Some days ago I asked about the Squeak License, but I have not received
any answer.
http://squeak.org/license.html
Is this License DFSG free? I've now built Debian packages
(available at ftp://ftp.ira.uka.de/pub/squeak/debian/debian-2.2/2.8/ )
and I'd like to know if it is possible fo
[Cc:d to -legal, FYI. I'm not subscribed, please Cc:]
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 12:03:24PM +0300, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
>
> Hi,
>
> > d4x is clearly not Free as we define Free:
>
> > Please
> >
> > 1) get the package removed f
21 matches
Mail list logo
