On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 02:33:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:52:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> > >
> > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
> > >if any, must include the following acknowledg
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:24:55 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Comments will be appreciated - both about the general angle of
> > attack, and about my specific draft. I have probably forgotten about
> > a detail here and there.
>
> First comments
Antoher couple of comments:
* "A derived work can
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:35:09 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I guess, though, in a way
> it's another wording of the GPL's "you can't legally get a copy except
> by the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you
> accept this licence" clause.
Wait, wait!
I'm not sure I understand w
On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:04:36 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 2. Source code
> "The source for a work is a machine-readable form that is
> appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and
> inner workings."
>
> Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL?
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:52:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> >
> > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
> >if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> > "This product includes software developed by the
> >
On 2004-06-01 11:35:09 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're saying that because it doesn't say "retains _exclusive_
copyright",
it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non
OpenVision) portions of the work? [...]
Not exactly (else I would have written t
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >"OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
> >Code,
> >whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" seems like it
> >tries to
> >claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create.
>
> This
On 2004-05-31 21:15:35 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The second paragraph is very questionable, even if the terms being
"agreed
to" are free.
If the only way you can obtain it is by making a copy yourself, it is
a little hostile but applicable, I guess. Surely it's not part
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 07:31:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I'd like to append something like the following:
> >
> > The license may not place further constraints on the naming or
> > labelling of the derivative work. This i
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:47:01PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
Right: If something needs special permission, it is non-free and can at
most go into non-free. But since non-free is not part of debian (the
distribution), special permission only for distributing it *in* debian
10 matches
Mail list logo
