Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The former [relicensing component parts under compatible licenses]
> is not an option for OpenSSL (has probably been tried millions of
> times)
Never say never; popular works do sometimes change licenses from
community pressure to be compatible. I haven't
Le vendredi 16 novembre 2007 à 16:23 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> If you talk to lawyers and ask them about the GPL, they will tell you that
> the GPL is a contract offer that needs to be explicitely acepted by the
> licensee.
This is of course completely wrong. Unless you accept the terms
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:00:56 +1100, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In my view, the ideal solution from a reduce-licensing-headaches
>perspective is to get all the code in a work licensed compatibly with
>no need for exception clauses, either by relicensing some parts or by
>replacing parts
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:30:10 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>For all I know he does have a legitimate claim under German law that cdrkit
>infringes his Urheberrecht, but cdrkit is not a German product per se.
Please be aware that Ganneff and Zomb are also living in Germany, and
a
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Anyway, in Europe you cannot agree on a contract that you do not yet know and
for this reason, a text like "GPLv2 or any later" is void.
Why? Assuming the rest of your characterizations for the sake of
argument, two contracts currently exist which meet those criteria.
Hi all,
The final STIX fonts licence is available (quoted below too):
http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html
Here are some of the comments they got on it:
http://www.stixfonts.org/feedback-license.html
Here are some of the more general comments:
http://www.stixfonts.org/feedback-general.h
"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed "GPL is a license not a
> > contract" folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense
> > claim? Consider:
> >
> > [lots and lots of cas
* Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-14 23:54:08 -0500]:
> you missed my email with the logical proof that there is a dependency:
>
> does getweb function correctly if the external files are unable to be
> downloaded? if the answer is no, then the script must be considered to
> depe
On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed "GPL is a license not a
> contract" folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense
> claim? Consider:
>
> [lots and lots of case citations]
It may or may not be correct, but I don'
9 matches
Mail list logo
