On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
> been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
> the licence then you don't have that permission. Once you realise this it
> will be eas
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
>> This is "freeware"; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
>> ask?).
>
> I rather ask and take the ridicule, if any, than brooding over legal
> implications I'm not very likely to understand. I do have severe trouble
> to parse legalese and licenses, maybe I'm just a
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> > Distribution
> > You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
> > all files are included. The files in this package are
>
> This is "freeware"; it is acute
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> Distribution
> You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
> all files are included. The files in this package are
This is "freeware"; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
ask?).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
Hello, world.
I am thinking about packaging a Java BDD tool called (of all things)
"jade"[1].
Before I venture further, can someone enlighten me about the freeness of
the attached license? It only talks about distribution, nothing about
derived works. And it looks like it was taken from the bina
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For example, you display a paragraph of text in a menu and include the
> pages of the Invariant section in compliance with the license. Fine.
> But then you make the font of the Invariant section invisible. You
> included it anyway, so are yo
En réponse à Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
> > write a free equivalent.
(I've been asked politely not to raise this argument again :-)
> Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
[snip areas of broad agreement]
> I can't think of a freedom that is useful for program documentation that
> it not equally important for a novel. Likewise software itself ->
> documentation.
Modifiability. The subject of a novel is far more static than
8 matches
Mail list logo
