On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:23:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I've found myself thinking on similar lines in the past: especially
> this is where all the FooCorp Public Licenses tend to go off the rails,
> insisting on how incredibly much more important FooCorp is than every
> other contributor,
Currently, there's THREE licenses here-- from August this year...
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mozilla-relicense-faq.html
They're in the process of dual licensing Mozilla with MPL and GPL...
Since it is obvious that the NPL and GPL cannot coexist, they have
obviously worked out the inconsistencie
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:52:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Which of the following interpretations seems truer to the spirit of free
> software, which the DFSG is meant (in part) to communicate?:
>
> A) The originator of a project, or his or her designee, is the ultimate
> authority over t
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:37:53AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> How does the GPL "Not Contaminate Other Software" when any software
> that so much as links to GPL'd code has restrictions placed on its
> license?
There's an important distinction between what the GPL is trying to do and
what UWash'
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:41:54PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> So is mozilla in main or non-free?
You should be able to figure that out.
Anyways, currently there's two licenses here:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0.html
> If imap goes into non-free because of this
Branden and I sort of agree . He wants to put the NPL/MPL in the category of non-free, I'd
prefer to put the UW license in free. Either way, the basis is the
same: consistency. If they have similar clauses, and the clause in
question is the deciding factor between free/non-free, then they shoul
So is mozilla in main or non-free? If imap goes into non-free because of
this one clause, it'd be logical to reassess mozilla in light of it. BTW
Raul, which clause of the DFSG is violated in this case?
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +, Colin W
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 04:45:39AM -0800, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have packed a microcode loader for Pentium Pro, Pentium II,...
> I have some problem with the Intel license:
>
> The microcode have this copyright:
>
> /+++
> / Copyright Intel Corporation, 1995, 96, 97, 98,
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >I urge the Debian community to reject this license; it looks to me like it
> >might fail DFSG #9.
>
> "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software"? Really? I think it would
> be a strange interpretation of a "Distribution" of UW-IMA
Previously Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> I have packed a microcode loader for Pentium Pro, Pentium II,...
How is it different then the /dev/cpu/microcode support the
kernel already provides?
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> Er, hang on. Isn't this similar to the restrictions in the NPL?
> www.mozilla.org is giving me 502s, so I can't check directly, but in an
> essay by Bruce Perens on the DFSG/OSD he says:
>
> An important feature of the NPL is that i
Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> Scripsit Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems
> > / which include an Intel P6 family microprocessor sold or distributed
> > / to or by you. You are authorized to copy and instal
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 11:51:43PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > No it doesn't. Permission to use, distribute, and modify are all needed
> > (and provided..) This is free, though the license could use a once-over
> > because of what's missing in the translation.. It's not GPL compatible,
> > i
Scripsit Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems
> / which include an Intel P6 family microprocessor sold or distributed
> / to or by you. You are authorized to copy and install this material
> / on such sy
Hello!
I have packed a microcode loader for Pentium Pro, Pentium II,...
I have some problem with the Intel license:
The microcode have this copyright:
/+++
/ Copyright Intel Corporation, 1995, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000.
/
/ These microcode updates are distributed for the sole pur
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> Er, hang on. Isn't this similar to the restrictions in the NPL?
> www.mozilla.org is giving me 502s, so I can't check directly, but in an
> essay by Bruce Perens on the DFSG/OSD he says:
>
> An important feature of the NPL is that i
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 12:36:22AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>> (5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the
>> Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of
>> the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy,
17 matches
Mail list logo
