On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 07:33:53PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> While I'm not disputing your assertion that Microsoft may exploit copyrigth
> holders who use their various free services to recover their operating costs
> or increase profits, I do contest your assertion that a general public
> li
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 01:02:02PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>
> [stuff omitted]
>
> Now you may think the GPL (and/or other GNU licensed works like the
> LGPL, FDL, etc...) protects your work. What you may not realize is
> that Copyright Law is the _ultimate_ law. The software that cracked
> t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Apr 2001, Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "mod_backhand"
>> > *nor may "mod_backhand" appear in their names without prior written
>> > *permi
Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "mod_backhand"
> > *nor may "mod_backhand" appear in their names without prior written
> > *permission. For written permission, please contact
> > *[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UUGLY! Pin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, James Bromberger wrote:
>
>Dear Legal List,
>
>I have been asked to bring the licence for a package I am preparing for
>unstable, which I am hoping will go into main, to this list hoping to
>get a concensus that the licence is DSFG
- Forwarded message from Bryan-TheBS-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Copyright/Licensing] "Dual-copyright/licensing" of your IP
withOUT your permission
Date: 2001 April 02
[Copyright/Licensing] "Dual-copyright/licensing"
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:28:15PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
>
> Would most people agree with this, and claim that this licence is DFSG
> compatible? Under what situations would this not be compatible?
>
This is simply the Apache license, with the names changed. Therefore,
since the Apac
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:28:15PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> Ralf Treinen has raised some concern with sections 4, 5 and 6, and the
> ultimate senntence in the licence, which I post here in full:
It looks fine. Standard BSD (with advertising clause), and some
additional clauses to requirin
Dear Legal List,
I have been asked to bring the licence for a package I am preparing for
unstable, which I am hoping will go into main, to this list hoping to
get a concensus that the licence is DSFG OK.
The package is an Apache module, libapache-mod-backhand, which performs
application level
9 matches
Mail list logo
