* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020507 16:47]:
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:24:37PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 13:33, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > If it doesn't, then the OpenSSL code, by itself, does not touch any
> > > GPL'd code. The interpreter, which includes GPL co
* Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020505 20:33]:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:40:59PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > A few questions:
> >
> > (1) How about this: I ship two versions of _socket.so in the python2.1
> > package: One is linked with OpenSSL,
* Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020504 06:09]:
> It has come to my attention that a number of packages may be breaching
> the GPL by linking with libreadline instead of libeditline.
>
> For instance, I asked on debian-legal, and was told that no program may
> link both with libreadline and openss
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010905 16:21]:
> I continue to feel that this license is dangerously vague, and I
> reiterate my offer to work with the Zope Corporation, or Digital
> Creations, or whoever is in charge of it to clean it up, if Gregor is
> agreeable to that proposal. Since i
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010905 05:19]:
> Version 1.1 of the Zope Public License was recently released. It has a
> lot of problems.
>
> http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL
Thanks for pointing out the new revision of the license, I hadn't
noticed it myself yet.
A few quick comments:
I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the GPL, but still I'm not
able to decide this (even after browsing
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html):
Let's make up a gedankenexperiment:
I have written a program which I plan to distribute under a proprietary
license. Now I have found a GPL
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:56:34PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:44:17AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > I will keep contact. Maybe you will see contrib packages based on the SAP
> > DB source and the Binary Build Environemnt before you will see DFSG
> > compliant pa
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 03:25:41PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I don't know what all of this means. Erring on the side of caution,
> we probably should not link Python2 stuff against GPLed stuff, not
> because the FSF says it's bad voodoo, but because the licensing issues
> are unclear. My onl
Hi Chris,
thanks for the feedback!
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:34:13PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I would add at least a pointer to the Python community's response to
> this issue,
Which was like what ?
Can _you_ give _me_ a pointer to that response ? The only kind of response I
noticed wa
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 09:59:36AM -0600, Eric Sherrill wrote:
> Clause 5. fails DFSG 5. (discrimination against persons), clause 8. is a
> noxious termination clause (but not specifically DFSG-unfree, see e.g.
> Apple's "open" license), and clause 9. is an even more noxious choice of law
> clause
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:32:46PM -0600, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> I thought that RMS's lawyers and Guido (and possibly his lawyers...) had
> talked over the license and were going to change it to be non-conflicting.
> Did that never happen, break down... or?...
The problem wasn't Guido, the prob
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> Can someone remind me what the problem was with the Python 2.0 license?
>
> I just took a quick look at http://www.pythonlabs.com/2.0/license.html,
> and I don't see anything questionable there. In fact, it's written
> under the Sta
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 10:44:56AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> >>From what I've heard, it's not that bad generally. Do you have specific
> > examples of things that break ?
>
> beopen has a list of incompatibilites. Several python functions had their
> argument checking tightened. Som
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 10:40:47AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > Therefore I'm going to package Python 2.0 in a way that it can be installed
> > parallel to the old Python 1.5.2 packages. The Python 2.0 packages won't
> > include Readline support though (as well as other things that ar
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:17:17PM +0200, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> I cannot see much discussion about the python 2.0 license here,
> has a agreement been reached? Will python 2.0 be included in
> woody? Do you know other forums where this is discussed?
> Please don't say debian-private!
There's
Since I'm no legal expert, I'd like to collect your opinions about the
Python 1.6 license (http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1012, see also the Python
1.6 License FAQ: http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html).
There's an argument whether this license is compatible with the GPL, but
that's secondary
Many of you certainly have noticed the mess about the Python licensing.
In short words, the current owner of the Python copyright, CNRI, seems
to believe that almost all existing Python releases (1.3 up to 1.5.2)
were never really licensed to anybody (although they had a file
Misc/COPYRIGHT that i
ving to pay a
fee, be the use commercial or not.
>From your understanding: Would we be allowed to include this piece in
Debian (i.e. is it DFSG free) or is not not ?
Gregor
--
| Gregor Hoffleit admin MATHInet / contact HeidelNeXT |
| MAIL: Mathematisches Institut PHONE: (49)62
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:10:52PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> >From the LPPL:
> * You rename the file before you make any changes to it, unless the
>file explicitly says that renaming is not required. Any such changed
>files should be distributed under conditions that ensure that those
>
>
> > What about buying a Debian cdrom, or borrowing one, or getting a copy
> > from someone on a floppy disk?
>
> Ask your own lawyer. I really can't tell what harm there is here.
> Everyone else seems to find the licence acceptable if a bit tedious to
> read -- I'm the first to admit the latt
[I'd suggest cc'ing Guido in replies in this thread to (that's as I think
he's not subscribed to the list ? Guido, the thread is archived as
http://www.de.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-9901/msg00211.html]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) wrote:
> Guido van Rossum writes:
> > A note on cla
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:02:36PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> In terms of zope, Bruce will be asking them to consider making the
> requirement a suggestion - so don't go flaming them :-)
I'd like to add that I was and am in contact with Paul Everitt of
Digital Creations <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about t
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:59:54AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > > That is surprising. Should I lobby Qt about changing the license
> > > on the license?
> >
> > Why don't you just email them a
On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:59:54AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > That is surprising. Should I lobby Qt about changing the license
> > on the license?
>
> Why don't you just email them and ask permission?
The point of keeping the license document under restrictive copy
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I convinced a friend to release his software under a free
> license, but he wanted protection in case he later decide to
> commercialize a version of his software. I suggested the Qt
> license which was at version 0.92 at the tim
Have you seen the revised version of the Zope Public License
(http://www.zope.org/License/ZPL) ? Appearently, they are aware of the
problem with the adverting and attribution clauses and try to refine their
license to make it more accepted (the changelog is on
http://www.zope.org/License), only tha
26 matches
Mail list logo
