[[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
Hi,
I've filed an ITP (WNPP #252999) on some software that is licensed under the
GPL.
The source does not contain anything like a COPYING or LICENSE file or
anything where the author asserts copyright over the work, or states that
it's
On 2004-06-09 19:08:06 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm afraid that is a revisionist interpretation. First, Mozilla is
certainly intended to be "Open Source", which is essentially the same
as
what Debian means by "free":
The jury seems out on that. They could mean *anything* b
> Threads on debian-user don't mean a damn thing.
Thanks. That totally clears up the issue. I will now continue using XMMS
properly!
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:31:44PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Just to toss some fuel on the fire, it seems like debian-legal should
> give careful consideration to licenses like this that are written by a
> team of lawyers from a big corporation. These licenses seem to
> frequently include stipulat
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:30:09PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > | With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or
> > an
> > | entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
> > America,
> > | any litig
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:14:33AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > Oh, wouldn't life be easy if everyone would just use the GPL or BSD
> license
> > and all these variations would just disappear.
>
> Freedom comes at a price!!!
"The price of freedom is eternal idiots"?
--
.''`. ** Debian
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe the MPL was ever meant to be a free license,just an open one,
> hence the requests and eventual agreement to release it under the GPL. So
> long as Debian distributes under the GPL, there's no issue for debian-legal.
>
I'm afraid that i
Sean Kellogg said on Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:55:55PM -0700,:
> I don't believe the MPL was ever meant to be a free license,just an open
> one,
> hence the requests and eventual agreement to release it under the
We had discussed the *Nokia* Public licnese earlier, found that it
identical in
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Doesn't Debian use Mozilla under the GPL/LGPL license option though? (In
> other words, is anyone using the MPL in a way that matters to Debian?)
Could you provide a reference about this GPL/LGPL option? The copyright file I
found for Mozilla Firefox only references th
> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there
Me> is to get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to
Me> new versions of the CC licenses.
NN> Perhaps if they read their own mailing list?.
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I
>>want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
>>print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems
>>onerous for physical distribution.
>
> "EP" == Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EP> the Creative Commons trademark that [is] scattered in various
EP> nor under the license agreement. _Alice_ didn't [say] Bob couldn't
Sorry, those two omissions were driving me crazy.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
Email: [EMAIL PROT
* Josh Triplett:
> Agreed. "In the text" could imply "right next to where you differ from
> the standard", which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
> non-free. Without the "in the text", modifiers could simply add a
> blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work saying "this has bee
On 2004-06-09 09:17:45 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just don't think the second paragraph in the trademark box is
binding in any way. After all, Creative Commons (quite wisely) states
that it is not a party to the license. For what reason, then, should
either of the parties
> "MR" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution,
>> ShareAlike, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license
>> that would require Attribution would also fall under this
>> analysis.
MR> Do any SA/NC/ND licences n
15 matches
Mail list logo
