Hi
While investigating manpages-cs licensing, I looked at other
manpages-* packages copyright files and some of them really look strange
for me.
manpages-de/copyright[1], manpages-hu/copyright[2] and
manpages-jp/copyright[3]: "commercial distribution may impose other
requirements (e.g., acknowled
Richard Fontana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > This still stands. I'm still entirely unaware of what the legal
> > reason [for SHOUTY CAPITALS in disclaimers] is.
>
> This is explained in the rationale document that accompanied the third
> public draft of GPLv3,
> http://gplv
Ben Finney wrote:
> Sadly, checking the released version of GPLv3, I see that the sections
> "15. Disclaimer of Warranty." and "16. Limitation of Liability." both
> contain all text in SHOUTY CAPITALS.
>
> That's disappointing :-( I wasn't aware they'd been reverted from
> readable text. It must h
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For what it's worth, the GPLv3 drafters researched the commonly-held
> belief that SHOUTY CAPITALS are required for warranty disclaimers,
> and concluded there was no such requirement:
>
> The warranty exclusions that were in GPL2 have not been changed
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, as regards the SHOUTY CAPITALS thing, I gather some
> jurisdictions in the US make this a legal requirement,
For what it's worth, the GPLv3 drafters researched the commonly-held
belief that SHOUTY CAPITALS are required for warranty disclaimers, and
John Halton wrote:
Also, as regards the SHOUTY CAPITALS thing, I gather some
jurisdictions in the US make this a legal requirement, so the board
may want to check their local legal position before finalising the
non-shouty version.
Well I notice that even the MIT License formats the disclaimer
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
essentially a modified
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The proposed license talks about a "Specification", which becomes a bit
> problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is
> not a "Specification" anymore. I could turn it into a poem, or into a
> summary descri
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
> >> following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
> >> essentially a modified MI
Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Probably OK in non-free given that Debian is a non-profit
>> organisation.
>
> Wait, wait: IIUC, we are talking about a work which is licensed
> under the terms of the GNU LGPL v2 or later as a whole, but includes
> code licensed under a non-profit-only license.
>
> The t
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
essentially a modified MIT license):
This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
w
John Halton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
freedom-friendly).
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
> following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
> essentially a modified MIT license):
This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
were not used?
>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
> issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
> licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
> freedom-friendly).
Thank you for
Back in October, I posted about the licensing of XMPP specifications
produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/10/msg00055.html
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like t
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
>> ``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
>> Permission to use, modify, and distribute this software and its
>> documentation for any purpose without fee is hereby granted,
>>
On Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM, Ivan Shmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
> ``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
>
> Permission to use, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation
> for any purpose without
This one time, at band camp, Ivan Shmakov said:
> It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
> ``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
Yes. 'Without fee' in this context is a modifier for 'permission', not
for 'purpose'.
--
---
It may be my english skills that are failing me, but is that
``without fee'' piece DFSG-compliant, or not?
$ cat gdal/frmts/hdf4/hdf-eos/README
The following source files are taken from the HDF-EOS package
EHapi.c,
GDapi.c,
SWapi.c,
HDFEOSVersion.h,
HdfEosDef.h,
ease.h
and have
2008/1/8, Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Point taken. Japanese courts seem to be a bit more concerned with intent
> rather than the strength of the wording of a written agreement. If
> non-commercial use being prohibited without permission is non-free then this
> work should be interpreted as no
20 matches
Mail list logo
