MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
> non-free? Further, is a licence saying:
>
>You may prepare, copy and distribute derived works of this
> software. However, you may not modify this work.
That is not mutually exclusive
Dear Ben and Others:
In response to your most recent comments, I have further amended the
draft license for the JasPer software. It appears that Image Power
will approve the license as written below. I am still awaiting official
approval. I think that this license should address all of your con
Hi and thanks for your quick reply,
Le Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:24:34PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:17:23PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> > I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue.
> > Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to h
Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > - one is taken from RFC 3174
> > (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html, license terms at the end).
>
> Not a chance, that's nowhere near GPL-compatible.
>
> It also appears to be non-free in its own right.
>
> > I don't like the wording of "derivative
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:24:34PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > - one is taken from RFC 3174 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html,
> >license terms at the end).
>
> Not a chance, that's nowhere near GPL-compatible.
>
> It also appears to be non-free in its own right.
And it's just an
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:17:23PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue.
> Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to have slrn use
> it (#127901). However, slrn is GPL and libcanlock is made of several
> files :
>
> - one is BS
Hi debian-legal,
I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue.
Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to have slrn use
it (#127901). However, slrn is GPL and libcanlock is made of several
files :
- one is BSD licensed
- some are under the X11 license as found in
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the similarity
> between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising clause":
Let's nip that in the bud before people start wasting time over
it. It's not really the advertising
On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
same reasons they give appear to apply also to the clause added by the
XFree86 folks. That is, one cannot distribute something under the GPL
with added restrictions like the one above quoted.
I'm still thinking about this, but
Hello.
What is the policy on crypto in non-free?
The initial crypto-in-main announcement excluded non-free.
Is that still the case?
I am packaging the latest ckermit, and I have enabled crypto support
(kerberos 4 & 5, openssl, TLS, DES, CAST and support for an external
ssh client). I failed to r
10 matches
Mail list logo
