Re: issues with the AGPL

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:17:49 -0700 Chris Harshman wrote: > On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 12:43 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > > All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that > > > > way in other countries than US

Re: distributing precompiled binaries

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:45 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:02:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > > [...] > > It's reasonable for you to hold the position that this is "not > > free". But that's not what the DFSG says; and before someone tries > > to change the DFSG to say thi

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:57:11 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg : > > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote: > >> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral > >> > grants of permission, so I can't see h

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:46:59 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100 > > Ben Finney wrote: > > > > > Greg Harris writes: > > > > > > > (It ought

Re: FLTK License

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:06 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes: > > > === FLTK License, May 2001 === > > FLTK License > > Ammended May 4, 2001 > > > > The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public > > Lic

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Greg Harris writes: > > > (It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) … > > Whoa. Since when is a copyright license considered a contract? > Contracts require multipartite negotiation; I can't

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:45:41 + MJ Ray wrote: This is helpful. Thanks. More in-line. > Greg Harris wrote: [...] > > Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make > > actual progress on this subject: > > > > - What exactly is it that s

Re: issues with the AGPL

7;ve won or lost anything by my opinion.) Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make actual progress on this subject: - What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are prevented from doing by the terms of the AGPL? - What other license would be required to

Re: python-imaging

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:21:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault writes: > > > Ben Finney wrote: > > > Greg Harris writes: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > But that wording is *not* what has been used

Re: python-imaging

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:43:27 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Carl Fürstenberg writes: > > > The Python Imaging Library is > > > > Copyright (c) 1997-2001 by Secret Labs AB > > Copyright (c) 1995-2001 by Fredrik Lundh > > > > By obtaining, using, and/or copying this software and/or its > > associate

Re: Which license am I looking for?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:25:51 + "Anthony W. Youngman" wrote: > In message <20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se>, Greg Harris > writes > >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 > >Steve Langasek wrote: > > > >> > >> No, he's sa

Re: Which license am I looking for?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:45:23PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > >>> But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal > >>> statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very > >>> odd that you could be sued