Re: Artistic License

2001-02-27 Thread Sam TH
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:52:04PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > There is a very long thread about the Artistic License; if it is > a Free Software license according to the DFSG or not. Whatever the > outcome of that discussion I think that it is clear that the Artictic > License is indeed

Artistic License

2001-02-27 Thread Mark Wielaard
Hi, There is a very long thread about the Artistic License; if it is a Free Software license according to the DFSG or not. Whatever the outcome of that discussion I think that it is clear that the Artictic License is indeed a very vague license. Which seems to be why the discussion is so long. (Ev

OpenSSL License

2001-02-27 Thread Sam TH
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 02:56:01AM -0700, John Galt wrote: > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > > >On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > > >[reply to the real post later] > > > >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > >> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for Op

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-27 Thread John Galt
update On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, I wrote: >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> >>[reply to the real post later] >> >>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >>> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-27 Thread John Galt
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: > >[reply to the real post later] > >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated >> >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbi

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-27 Thread Sam TH
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: [reply to the real post later] > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated > >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking with GPL code. > >> Yet OpenSSL

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-27 Thread John Galt
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:32:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > >> >What's that supposed to mean? >> >> Meaning that from your cite, one cannot be sure that they are. > >Would you like to cite some other part of the license, co

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-27 Thread Sam TH
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:20:08PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >2. Default copyright was established both in the Copyright Act of 1976 > >

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-27 Thread John Galt
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >2. Default copyright was established both in the Copyright Act of 1976 >> >> >and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. The relevant >>