Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 20.09.2009, 01:10 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> Trivially non-free (DFSG #6). Also, the word "evil" is far too
> subjective to be meaningful in a license.
how about trivially free, since the sentence, as you say, is not
meaningful in a license and thus has no effect? :-)
Greetin
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 03.09.2008, 20:13 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli:
> If being usable in an SSH session counts as "supporting" remote
> interaction "through a computer network", then basically every program
> supports such interaction! This would mean that any AfferoGPLv3'ed
> program must compl
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2004, 16:36 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
> Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd
> sources, then we have a problem.
If it only applies to the windows sources/binary, we don't have a
problem. If anybody has a problem, then those who contrib
Hi,
Harald Geyer wrote:
If you are right then I need to reword the license such that the user
can choose which jurisdictions concept of public domain he likes to
use. Would that still be a valid license?
I have to fold on that one; I'm not an experience d-legal'er. But I hope
someone else can a
Hi,
Harald Geyer wrote:
Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any
objections against my draft.
However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in
whatever "substantial portions of the Software"
Hi Harald,
Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org,
and is well known
Hi,
I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if
Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12:
> They later released it under the GPL licence[2].
is true, then
> 1) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are both incompatible
>with the GPL and thus attempts
Hi,
Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11:
> 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
> reselling the game as an individual item.
>
> Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG?
AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowed to distribute it as part of
something
Hi Psychoid,
I am looking into packaging psybnc for debian (of course with proper
credit). Unfortunately, there are some problems: You include two files
(snprintf.c, bsd-setenv.c) with GPL-incompatible licenses. I asked for
advice[1] on debian legal, here is a summary for you.
bsd-setenv.c:
Is un
Hi,
I was just about to package "psybnc"[1], a popular irc bouncer.
A closer look into the src/ dir revealed that the author seems to have
followed the Free Software spirit by not re-inventing a lot of wheels,
but didn't pay close attention to legal stuff...
His own works are GPLed, and have co
Hi,
Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
> > 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > then you must supply one.
> To be more concrete, this fails the desert island
Hi,
I ee a problem with
6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
What if I have my family-only private piece of software that I use
together with the Software,
nheld um 18:56:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 06:45:22PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Hi debian-legal,
> >
> > since for some reason we don't have that, I started to collect
> > DFSG-compliant licences on http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
> >
&g
Hi debian-legal,
since for some reason we don't have that, I started to collect
DFSG-compliant licences on http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
I added the obvious important ones, other will be added later. If
possible, with link to the debian-legal list of course.
Non-compliant licence
Hi Jiba,
Am Di, den 20.04.2004 schrieb Jiba um 14:54:
> About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur
> in a free license:
>
> "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character,
> and his background".
This would render the licence non-free, since yo
Hi,
my interpretation is that we avoid a problem:
We only distribute the orginal sources (alongside a .diff.gz, but that's
ok). Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified
sources.
Maybe
"Modification of the source for personal use is permitted."
can be a problem, since the bina
Hi,
Am Di, den 30.12.2003 schrieb Ben Reser um 23:35:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
> > Somehow the swirl on this page seems familiar... :-)
> > http://www.elektrostore.com/
> Hell that's not just familiar that's a blatent rip.
Now what can we do about it? Is ther
Hi,
Am Do, den 27.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 09:55:
> Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The GPL is all about what *you* have to do if *you* distribute. It
> does not in any way enable you to demand things from *others* who
> distribute, unless you happen t
ours, they are under the GPL", you buy the cards (or
just one) and a week later request the source for the firmware. But this
would piss them and other vedords off, so let's not do it :-)
nomeata
Am Do, den 27.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 10:37:
> On Nov 25, 2003, at 18:27
Hi,
Am Di, den 25.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 21:27:
> On Nov 25, 2003, at 13:54, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> No, it has nothing to do with whether a promise is kept, but it does
> have something to do with if a legal promise ( = contract ) is made. A
> contract (at least in
o join the discussion I
think I'm satisfied :-)
Thanks for the interesting talk
nomeata
Am Di, den 25.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 18:48:
> On Nov 25, 2003, at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Company B produces some kind of Sweets. Because the packaging is not
> &g
Hi,
Am So, den 23.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 04:44:
> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this "licence":
> > * you may read it
> > * you may print it
> > Then there is
Hi,
Am Do, den 20.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 01:50:
> Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL
> > to either "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
&g
Am Mi, den 19.11.2003 schrieb Don Armstrong um 22:25:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
> > freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
> > Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
ht to your cat?
No guarantee that that would work legally, though.
Joachim Breitner
--
Joachim Breitner
e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W++
Hi
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 23.30 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
> On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >
> > "Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
> > product is a precondition for this".
> > [...]
&
on: The LaTeX file,
common: the "letter" document LaTex style), Hardware (non-common: the
blue prints; "common" the lithography machine and the silicon), Humans
(non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-)
Joachim Breitner
--
Joachim Breitner
e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECT
e. But a clearer definition would be great, of course.
Joachim
--
Joachim Breitner
e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V?
one can actually
hope that every piece of Debian software and data already confirms to
your "5th Requirement for Freedom".
Besides that, I fully support that proposal, since I value privacy very
high
Joachim Breitner
Debian Developer to be :-)
--
Joachim Breitner
e-Mail: [EMAIL
29 matches
Mail list logo
