I mean the original ancient vim license of the times before GPLv2+.
Am 2016-01-29 um 11:03 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
On 01/21/2016 05:09 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
There are licenses like the vim license which force developers to ship
their patches proactively to the upstream developers
Dear Riley Baird,
Am 2016-01-21 um 22:44 schrieb Riley Baird:
Hi,
In order to improve the situation and make this software available to
a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from
scratch: the so called 'Convertible Free Software License'.
It's almost never a
Hi Jonathon,
Am 2016-01-21 um 22:33 schrieb jonathon:
>
>
> On 21/01/2016 21:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>
>> a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license
from scratch:
>
> What problem are you trying with this license, that other licenses
nd has not been applied to any program yet.
Yours,
Elmar Stellnberger
P.S.: Here comes the current draft (v0.8) of the license:
CONVERTIBLE FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE
Version 0.8, 2016-01-21 , *** This is just a draft ***
copyright 2016, by Elmar Stellnberger
Everyone is permitted t
e not tended to
quickly).
Cheers,
Paul
If you know about any issue, please report it to me (estel...@elstel.org)
before it should get uploaded to non-free or any other branch.
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:35PM +, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
You're free to try to get it into non-fr
Am 08.11.2013 16:33, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:15:30PM +, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
"specific to someone": Well this is an unavoidable necessity in order to
Maybe, but specific clauses like this clearly violate OSD #3 and #5
(#3: if your downstrea
You're free to try to get it into non-free.
Thanks!
Paul
How to apply for acceptance in non-free?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/527d2777.2020
Am 07.11.2013 20:21, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
However it is not an OSD criterium
Independent on whether it is or not (it’s not explicitly listed, as are
other things people have commented on, but some of these things can be
inferred from the OSD), I said in my first eMail that I’d do a genera
ITP bug #721447 instead.
Elmar Stellnberger dixit:
What about binaries?
such as python, bash or perl. As the license says nothing about binaries I
would presume that it is not forbidden to derive such binaries as long as the
No, binaries are derived works.
Yes, they are and the license does
Dear Gergely Nagy, Dear members of Debian-legal
Do you know a license somehow similar in spirit than mine which I
could use?
It would be nice to have something that oblidges 'closed distributions'
to publish
at least their sources as required by some software in RHEL which is
what puts
the
S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/
Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked
edition
of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software.
As you can understand and as I have already partially described there are
still issues t
11 matches
Mail list logo
