Re: license for patch?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Actually the author of the patch did not put any license on it and he > > belives that he cannot due to german laws. He is cooperating with us 100%

Re: Bug#180798: ITP: multisync -- A program to syncronize PIM data

[Mikael, I'm sending this query both to you and -legal, and setting the Mail-Followup-To: on the assumption that you're not subscribed to -legal as well. Please correct me if I have assumed incorrectly.] What is the currently recommended method for adding a linking exception (say with OpenSSL) to

Re: Justified in removing copyright notices?

I wrote: > The Lisp files were copied to create the tarball that same day, 7 April > 1992. 17 of those files contain this copyright notice: > > ;;; Copyright (c) 1987 John Peterson > ;;; Permission is given to freely modify and distribute this code ;;; > so long as this copyright notice is ret

Re: license for patch?

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 03:34 PM, Henning Makholm wrote: > > author to explicitly disclaim copyright (i.e. make it "public domain"). > > A possible statement would be > > ... > > | royalty-free, non-exclusive, world-wide license to any

Re: license for patch?

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 03:34 PM, Henning Makholm wrote: author to explicitly disclaim copyright (i.e. make it "public domain"). A possible statement would be ... | royalty-free, non-exclusive, world-wide license to any copyright on That's not public domain, that's just a very pe

Re: license for patch?

(Oops, sorry Glenn, meant to reply to list) On 12-Feb-03, 15:48 (CST), Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But can Debian distribute the patch itself? (After reading the random > attacks on the above link, I don't care to read anything else written by > that person at the moment.) That d

Re: license for patch?

Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 03:14:48PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > But the original question was about djbdns-installer, Oops. Didn't catch the "-installer" at first. My fault. > But can Debian distribute the patch itself? Bernstein writes on

Re: license for patch?

On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 03:14:48PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > A completely different, and possibly more important, question: Is > > Debian actually allowed to distribute djbdns binaries built from > > patched sources at all? > > No. See http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html. > > But the origin

Re: license for patch?

On 12-Feb-03, 14:34 (CST), Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A completely different, and possibly more important, question: Is > Debian actually allowed to distribute djbdns binaries built from > patched sources at all? No. See http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html. But the original quest

Re: revocability of licences

Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > People could swap signed slips of paper like that at conferences, etc. To the extent that the lack of consideration is a real problem at all, this might help. It might also hurt, though: If swapping signed slips of paper were to become a widesp

Re: license for patch?

Scripsit Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Actually the author of the patch did not put any license on it and he > belives that he cannot due to german laws. He is cooperating with us 100% > in order to make the distribution of the patch possible. ... > Does the patch really need a lice

Justified in removing copyright notices?

Hi all, In 1986/87 John Peterson (now of Haskell fame) wrote a Lisp to Postscript compiler called PLisp. In 1992 he packaged and distributed it after posting this 7 April message to comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.postscript (7 April is in the message ID. GMT time was 6 April): http://groups.google.c

license for patch?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all legal gurus, I need a small help to sort out a license problem. I filed a bug about djbdns-installer (contrib) in order to get the ipv6 patch distributed within debian and applied at compilation time to produce djbdns+ipv6 (non-

What is Helix doing that is attractive to the Free Software community?

Richard Stallman wrote: > I guess so...but are we really able to do anything with it that > we can't do without it? I can't see any program Helix is working on that is unique and attractive for the Free Software community. We can play Ogg Vorbis data with Free Software. We will probably continue