Branden Robinson wrote:
> This shouldn't be a problem. A good-faith effort should be sufficient;
> you can then proceed with a good-faith assumption that the change is not
> problematic.
Thanks very much for your insights, Branden!
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:44:43PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Also, is the requirement to change the name also non-DFSG compatible?
I forgot to answer this point.
There has been some debate recently over *precisely* what DFSG 4 means
(see the archives of debian-legal regarding the LaTeX Proj
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:44:43PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > ;;; following conditions are met:
> > > ;;; o distribution of a modification to the Software have been
> > > ;;;previously submitted to the maintainers; if the maintainers
> > > ;;;
[My apologies for the broad CC; I don't know who is subscribed to which
lists, but I'm subscribed to debian-legal, so if you reply to
debian-legal, I'll see it.]
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:39:56AM -0700, Larry Hunter wrote:
> I'm one ILISP developer who has no problem with GPL'ing ILISP.
>
> I t
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 04:12:07PM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> Hi Marcello,
>
> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:06, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > I'm seeking the opinion of -legal regarding an issue I've
> > been discussing on another mailing list. It pertains the YAST
> > license a
Walter Landry wrote:
> This is the problem. What if the people making a change can not
> contact the original author, because they live somewhere without
> internet access? If I make a modification, before I can give it to my
> friend across the street, I have to contact the original authors. An
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 02:22, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:33:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > My suggestion is that you ask the FSF for their more detailed advice.
> >
> > What contact address is best for
Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > ;;; following conditions are met:
> > > ;;; o distribution of a modification to the Software have been
> > > ;;;previously submitted to the maintainers; if the maintainers
> > > ;;;decide not to include
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm going to raise this license on the debian-legal mailing list just to
> get some second opinions on it and otherwise get the -legal list
> familiar with it, because I don't recall having seen it mentioned there
> before. (Or maybe I just missed it.)
>
> I am not sure
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The LLGPL doesn't look like a problem from a DFSG standpoint to me. Its
> real effect appears to be a liberalization of the copyleft in the LGPL
> ("Since Lisp only offers one choice, which is to link the Library into
> an executable at build time, we
[debian-legal, I was doing audit of ITPs made this year for weird
licenses, or failure to note what license was being used altogether. I
asked Mr. Rosenberg about #161007.]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:31:50PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
(It's "Branden", BTW.)
> It's a typo -- it
> From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Organization: Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:39:04 -0500
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:39:04 -0500
> X-
> the road. The best way to accomplish such a goal is to start off using
> the GPL, assign copyright to the FSF (and sign the paperwork), and
> accept patches only when the contributor is also willing to sign the
> paperwork. It's tedious, but changing licenses later in the game is
> difficult wh
Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, it must comply with the GPL now as it makes extensive use of GPL
> > code.
>
> It is interesting that GNU ships ilisp on their CD:
> http://www.gnu.org/order/source15.html
>
> So GNU is okay with redistributing ILISP. I consider their opini
I'm one ILISP developer who has no problem with GPL'ing ILISP.
I think the usual strategy of sending an email to all listed
contributors at their last known address saying that "we plan to do
this unless we here that you object by ," and then making
the change (assuming no complaints) should wor
Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for message. I've forwarded your message to ilisp-devel for
> their consideration as well as debian-legal. ILISP has been an
> important part of Lisp development for many years, so it is essential
> to clarify the issue completely.
>
> Sorry, it must comply with the GPL now as it makes extensive use of GPL
> code.
It is interesting that GNU ships ilisp on their CD:
http://www.gnu.org/order/source15.html
So GNU is okay with redistributing ILISP. I consider their opinion
important.
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`.
Peter,
Thanks for message. I've forwarded your message to ilisp-devel for
their consideration as well as debian-legal. ILISP has been an
important part of Lisp development for many years, so it is essential
to clarify the issue completely.
Of course, I think it is the hope of all that ILISP's li
Hi Marcello,
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:06, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm seeking the opinion of -legal regarding an issue I've
> been discussing on another mailing list. It pertains the YAST
> license as found in:
>
> ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast
This li
If you are unable to view the images in this email, please copy and paste the following url into your browser...
http://www.haestad.com/books/wdm_021105
Visit
http://www.haestad.com/comm_021105 to update communication preferences for debian-legal@lists.debi
20 matches
Mail list logo
