Re: Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend > for (mostly-)non-program files? The GPL is good enough for pretty much anything. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian

Experience with convincing people to DFSGize their licenses?

Hi, I am (among other packages...) maintaining Festival, the speech synthesizer. There are several languages for which Festival voices exist which are publically available, but under a somewhat restrictive copyright (non-commercial, non-military, non-transferable, ...). Specifically, I know of a

Re: GPL , what does it mean? -- the name that is.

On 3-Mar-04, at 11:52, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Mar 3, 2004, at 05:28, Lloyd Budd wrote: Was "general" a common term in licenses then? It does seem that general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman, may I suggest asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Thank you for the suggestion.

Re: GPL , what does it mean? -- the name that is.

On Mar 3, 2004, at 05:28, Lloyd Budd wrote: Was "general" a common term in licenses then? It does seem that general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman, may I suggest asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?

Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > >> Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more > >> to say on the subject: > > > > Hmm... I hat

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:34:41AM -0700, Joe Moore wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > As I said in my mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz > > >Technologies > > > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise t

Re: GPL , what does it mean? -- the name that is.

Lloyd Budd said on Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:28:08AM -0500,: > but where does the name come from? > > Was "general" a common term in licenses then? It does seem that > general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman, > > What about "public"? Were "public licenses" common? A licen

Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs

Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more >> to say on the subject: > > Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little > more formality in d-l

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

Branden Robinson wrote: > As I said in my mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz > >Technologies > > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote > > the sale, use or other dealings in this Softwa

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because the language is so unclear, I'm going with the most logical > interpretation I can come up with. I think that this captures why I, at least, am a bit uncomfortable with your analysis. I haven't looked in any detail at the license, so I've mostly st

Re: X-Oz Technologies

Branden Robinson wrote: I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a different name, maybe?). Can you please direct me to the software projects that used it before X-Oz did? I don't mean the individual parts of the license; I know examples where those have been used

GPL , what does it mean? -- the name that is.

Hello, I imagine that many of us are familiar with the documented origin of the GNU General Public License (GPL) but where does the name come from? Was "general" a common term in licenses then? It does seem that general (, generally) are regularly used by

GIF patent [Debian Weekly News - March 2nd, 2004]

On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 21:04, Martin Schulze wrote: > Bradley Kuhn reminded us of the [4]GIF patent that IBM > holds until 2006, even though the Unisys patent will expire soon. > 4. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html Right. And this is how I responded: > In the thread at debian-legal, we also

Re: Open Publication License v1.0 is not DFSG-free. WWW pages need relicensing?

On 2004-03-03 05:09:34 + Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh yeah. We now have a small problem: http://www.debian.org/license I think this is a known bug mentioned in bugs.debian.org/192748 and I suggest expanding that bug report with a new title. As we don't package

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On 2004-03-03 05:18:57 + Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a licence in Debian that is conditional on X-Oz's clause 4 wording. I'm not sure I follow you as in what you mean by conditional. One such that the permissions granted by the licence are conditional on satisfying X-Oz

Re: Open Publication License v1.0 is not DFSG-free. WWW pages need relicensing?

* Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 00:09:34 -0500]: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > --- Debian-legal summary --- > > > > The OPL (Open Publication License) is not DFSG free: > > Oh yeah. We now have a small problem: > > http://www.debi