On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 02:17:21PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > > My gut feeling is that a non-licence remains no licence -- and that, if
> > > it were ever proposed for Debian (which it hasn't been), it would end up
> > > in non-free following the "err on the side of caution" principle.
> >
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 02:17:21PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> Can anyone name a good replacement that can do Maildir delivery and doesn't
> run tons of stuff as root?
Any MTA which supports procmail can do Maildir delivery.
Postfix has an architecture vaguely reminiscent of qmail, and can
d
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 05:19:41AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:49:41AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > My gut feeling is that a non-licence remains no licence -- and that, if
> > it were ever proposed for Debian (which it hasn't been), it would end up
> > in non-free follow
> > That said, this is a bit off-topic for this list.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:12:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> If so, then numerous licence/legal questions about packages not proposed
> for Debian over the past 24 months (and about sundry licences in the
> abstract) have been likewise off-topi
begin Raul Miller quotation:
> That said, this is a bit off-topic for this list.
If so, then numerous licence/legal questions about packages not proposed
for Debian over the past 24 months (and about sundry licences in the
abstract) have been likewise off-topic.
You might find this thread useful
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:15:28AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> But I know of no statutory or case law that _says so_, and I am not a
> copyright attorney.
Um... djb's page on this issue[1] references 17 usc 117[2].
That said, this is a bit off-topic for this list.
Thanks,
--
Raul
[1] http://cr.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:15:28AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Some of the resulting questions are unclear to me, even in USA copyright
> law, let alone elsewhere: Does Bernstein's posting the file to an
> unrestricted public ftp or Web site create implicit general licence to
> retrieve the file? I
begin David Starner quotation:
> There's no legal question here, no arguments; that's what the law
> says.
The question, if any, is what licence might be created implicit in the
_circumstances_ (see two paragraphs down) of Bernstein's distribution.
Although I presumed to raise the issue on debian
begin Joseph Carter quotation:
> Your gut feeling is wrong.
To reiterate: My gut feeling is that a non-licence remains no licence.
My idle afterthought that it would (if proposed) end up in non-free is
no doubt wrong, however. It would, as I was suggesting as the main
thrust of my argument, h
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
> > > restrictions, all I see is: Derived Works The license must allow
> > > modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be
> > > distributed under the
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
> > restrictions, all I see is: Derived Works The license must allow
> > modifications and derived works, and must allow th
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:49:41AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> It's also my understanding that, strictly speaking, all rights to a
> copyrighted work remain with the author unless otherwise provided. So,
> one might argue that a copyrighted source tarball with no licence
> wording is unlicenced, pro
Hello all,
The program LGrind has a licensing issue which has troubled me a lot. On the
one hand, the source code bears a complete BSD licence (all four
paragraphs). This probably comes from vgrind, an old UNIX tool.
Further down one of the many authors, Van Jacobson, writes the following:
"This
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
> restrictions, all I see is: Derived Works The license must allow
> modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed
> under the same terms as t
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Wielaard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: RTLinux patent
> Yes, you are right. I was not completely sure.
> I was under the impression that software patents were
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Fortunately not. Read sections 7 and 8 of the GPL. If a patent prevents
> > you from distributing a GPL'd program, you may not do so. The DFSG is
> > concerned with Copyright, and so does not apply here as long as the DFSG
>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:31:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Fortunately not. Read sections 7 and 8 of the GPL. If a patent prevents
> you from distributing a GPL'd program, you may not do so. The DFSG is
> concerned with Copyright, and so d
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:49:41AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> My gut feeling is that a non-licence remains no licence -- and that, if
> it were ever proposed for Debian (which it hasn't been), it would end up
> in non-free following the "err on the side of caution" principle.
Your gut feeling is wr
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:31:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is not compatible with the GPL (or the DSFG, I believe). The
> The GPL is about reading, writing, modifying, and distributing software.
> It doesn't restrict platform compatibility (or even require functionality
> or com
I'm afraid I have to open by uttering some bad words: "Daniel J. Bernstein".
There. I've done it. (Sorry about that.)
I maintain a list of all known ftp daemons for Linux, at
http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/security/ftp-daemons , including the
licence status of each. (There are 25 of them.
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:23:45AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > If the patent were only valid in the USA, would it still have to be
> > > removed?
> > No, but it would be moved to Debian non-US so only 'patent safe' servers
> > outside the US
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If the patent were only valid in the USA, would it still have to be
> > removed?
> No, but it would be moved to Debian non-US so only 'patent safe' servers
> outside the USA would carry it.
Are you sure?
I thought that there was no problem with distributing
22 matches
Mail list logo
