Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-31 Thread Adam C Powell IV
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > [...] > > Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't > > see how it's relevant. > > It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-31 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] > Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't > see how it's relevant. It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an awkward way, thus making the work non-free. > Which terms of this lic

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

2007-12-31 Thread Adam C Powell IV
[Sorry to let the thread drop for so long] On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Adam C Powell IV a écrit : > > On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >> Adam C Powell IV a écrit : > >>> It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free.

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

2007-12-31 Thread Russ Allbery
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't like it. Current text seems to forbid referring to > `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' for a package that is licensed under > GPL version N or later. At the very least, it should allow this. I don't believe that the currnet Policy forbids that

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2007-12-31 Thread Sean B. Palmer
On Dec 31, 2007 11:36 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > > C = Allows distribution without full license text > > I am not able to see C as a reasonable requirement Fair enough. I've made a note of that in the following article: http://inamidst.com/stuff/eiffel/ - Why the Eiffel Forum License? Which I'

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2007-12-31 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:51:44 + Sean B. Palmer wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007 4:59 PM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please don't take offense for this, but I think that your needs are > > not so critical that they cannot be bent a little to be satisfied by > > an existing license.

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2007-12-31 Thread Sean B. Palmer
On Dec 31, 2007 2:00 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Sean, please follow the Debian mailing list guidelines > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct> Thanks. Francisco Poli pointed this out too, and I replied to him in the last two paragraphs of this message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-le

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2007-12-31 Thread Sean B. Palmer
On Dec 31, 2007 1:47 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know whether the problems with the CDDL that 1. it does not > follow the DFSG if there are active patents on the Covered Software; > 2. Matthew Garrett's comment at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg4.html Ye

www.debt-free.com.ar

2007-12-31 Thread Pls check this new site
Please see this site in Subject

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5

2007-12-31 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > >> > >> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way: > >> > >> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the G