Re: New licence for cryto++ code-base

2001-01-28 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:36:56PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote: > > Please cc me, I'm not on this list. > > Can someone give a cursory glance over this licence for any > non-DFSG-ness? > Looks free to me. There are some strange parts, but nothing that hinders free redistribution. Are the li

Re: New licence for cryto++ code-base

2001-01-28 Thread David Starner
In general, it looks fine. (I've never seen a free compilation license, though. That's funky.) A couple points . . . On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:36:56PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote: > All files in this library except the following are placed in > the public domain by Wei Dai and other contributers.

New licence for cryto++ code-base

2001-01-28 Thread Stephen Zander
Please cc me, I'm not on this list. Can someone give a cursory glance over this licence for any non-DFSG-ness? -- Stephen "And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!" (Please note this license only applies to version 4.1 or later. Earlier versions are covered under a slightly

Re: Bug#82116: README.why-python2 does not accurately describe licensing issues

2001-01-28 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 03:25:41PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > I don't know what all of this means. Erring on the side of caution, > we probably should not link Python2 stuff against GPLed stuff, not > because the FSF says it's bad voodoo, but because the licensing issues > are unclear. My onl

Re: Question about the Vovida licence

2001-01-28 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:04:04PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: > When looking at the opensource.org page, I discovered that the Vovida > Licence (http://www.vovida.org/licence.html) is considered as > OSD compliant. > > However, the fourth clause tells that > "4. Products derived from this softwar