On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 03:39:19PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
> to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
> proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's not the case.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
> >> because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
> >> their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
What about a license like the GP
Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
>> because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
>> their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
>
> Spot on. Exactly the point.
Ok
Hello
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:27:12PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> 3 MySQL 4: http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mys
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc t
Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
> non-dsicrimination guideline.
>
> Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
> a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
>> If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the license
I think that there may have been a misunderstanding,
caused by an ambiguity in the term "free software".
(Now there's a surprise.)
Once it has been clarified, I think that there will
be more agreement.
So let's try.
1. Software is executables, source files, etc.
2. The copyright holder can
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 3 MySQL 4: http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mysql-dfsg.html (note the
>>> current license RC bug on libmysqlclient12, it isn't lg
"Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Phillips sed:
> > I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded "fair credit", but I would
> > object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular
> > form.
>
> Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:08:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I don't think it could be
> > > considered straitforward to revise that with a text editor.
> > - C#
> > + D
> Yes, now, where is the source to this trumpet timbre? You may
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> > But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction
> > that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could
> > we allow them if they are truthful?
> B
As a follow up to the previous discussion about the VisualBoyAdvance licence
thing.
I have been in contact with the author of the programme and he says that he
intends to release the whole source under the GPL. However he has not been able
to get through to the original authors of the Snes9x co
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
> Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
> work more than copyright law?
No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far
worse. Personally, I don't think the DFSG allows it, except by
grandfatheri
13 matches
Mail list logo
