On Jan 2, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, it's not different at all - and a license that says "you aren't allowed
> to do anything illegal with this software" is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil
> disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of
> software in Debi
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> This part followed "if it's the book I think it is, then I already
> have read it". Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the
> book linked, but elsewhere in the book read.
Indeed. BTW, I should have interpreted the original phrase as "read
th
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> CLOSED derivative works.
>
> If it's copyright, it's proprietary.
>
> "proprietary" == "property". If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore
> it's property, therefore it's proprietary.
Although the GNU project disagrees again with y
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file?
Yes. Either it provides validation capabilities they don't need, or they have
some hand-written code to deal with the parts that were automated because of
having the schema aro
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name
> under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I
> don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write
> his format, however. A secon
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> More precisely, the grant would need to say (words to the effect of)
> either:
>
>You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the following terms:
>foo, bar, baz.
>
> or:
>
>You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the terms of foobar license;
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> It's a law site, where SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM, Novell and Linux in
> general is getting thoroughly dissected. If you're not interested then fair
> enough, but copyright and the GPL in particular are very important there.
I have
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is,
> then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was
> blind.
Still, I have given references to Stallman, to the GNU pages, to the XEmacs
p
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> (And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of emphasis
> on getting things right.)
Sorry, but I don't know what groklaw is, at least, not enough to guess about
your interests in it. I'm contacting debian-legal becaus
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message , Andrew
> Dalke writes
>> Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
>
> IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
>
> Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Here is relevant commentary
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message , Andrew
> Dalke writes
>>> I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and
>>> by doing so you are taking away user rights.
>>
>> Well, the GPL does
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I may (well) be wrong, but I've always understood the INTENT of the artistic
> licence to be "BSD plus a trademark licence".
It has some clauses which are decidedly non-BSD-ish. See for example section
(8) of the Artistic License 2.0.
I
[ on combining LGPL and Artistic Licenses in a single JAR file
as part of a Java library distribution.]
On Dec 12, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I believe that neither of these licences specify the licence of the code
> they are linked with, so this will be alright. The resultin
There seems to be a licensing problem with some of the chemistry software
packages, at least one of which is included in Debian. I'm working with a few
of the package developers to see if there really is a problem. We need some
better advice than I can find.
Short version:
- Can an LGPL 2.1 JA
14 matches
Mail list logo
