On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:38:26PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
> of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
> readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
>
Richard Stallman wrote:
> The Creative Commons licenses are not supposed to be used for software.
> Doesn't the Creative Commons site say so? It ought to.
http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3321 makes it clear the Creative
Commons does not intend to get involved with software licensing. Th
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, +00:38:27 EET (UTC +0200),
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pressed some keys:
> These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
> of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
> readers of debian-legal think about
I'm not sure that revocability of free software licences really is a
problem. However, if it is, this might help:
Free software authors and contributors could sell distribution rights
for their work with a contract something like the following.
|> Contract made between , "the
|> Licensor", and ,
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 17:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
> of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
> readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
> those lic
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
those licences carefully
The Creative Commons licenses are not suppos
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 08:48, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > "Attribution"
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
>
> It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
> "Derivative Work":
>
> | "Derivative Work" means a work base
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There are two ways this might be read. "must make modifications available
> to the upstream" is agreed as a non-starter. "must make source available
> to users in addition to distribution recipients" seems a lot more
> reasonable to me.
Actually, the lan
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
> two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
> introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
There are two ways this might be read. "must make modi
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Attribution"
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
"Derivative Work":
| "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
| and other pre-existing works, such
Don Armstrong wrote:
> As a parting note, it is troubling that they call a license version
> 1.0, and then have a revision date associated with it. The RPSL should
> really be refered to as RPSL version 1.0 as of 10/28/2002 or some
> such. [Or they should incrememnt the version numbers when they ch
11 matches
Mail list logo
