> Yes, of course it is. But the license really only applies to that portion
> of the derivative that is your work. The term "relicensing" implies
> otherwise, which is why I object to it.
why does it imply that? a licence is merely a contract; i can slap any
licence i want on a public domain work
> It says that you can't enlarge the scope, etc. of any copyright
> protection in the prexisting material.
>
> There is no copyright protection in the prexisting material, so I fail
> to see how that paragraph is relevant.
there is no copyright protection; therefore the scope of any existing
copy
> It't not justifying, it's *specifying*. If it does not say I'm allowed
> to distribute the with-xforms binaries, I cannot do so.
>
> If it only said,
>
> "You can distribute binaries linked with xforms."
>
> I would be allowed to distribute said binaries without sources, which
> would open a
> > The only thing I'd add to John's paragraph is:
>
> >"You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (c) by
> > T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars). You are not required to include
> > this paragraph in the license for derivatives of this
> > software."
>
> I think such an amendment sho
hi,
here are a few more thoughts. i'd ask for the original japanese licences as
well but i'm afraid i'm not nearly fluent enough to be useful (yet ;p).
> Atsuhito> Unless you delete the necessary files or modify them you
> Atsuhito> can distribute and/or use freely.
>
> I'm not sure what
ok, here's a thought:
posit: if a work is a product of the us government, it is in the public
domain.
thus, anybody can reuse and relicence it in any way one wishes.
for instance, you could grab any us government produced software and gpl it
(or whatever lese you like) for a debian package.
if
> 3. A reasonable fee may be charged to copy this software. Any fee
> may be charged to support this software. This software may be
> distributed as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software
> distribution provided that no claim of ownership of this software
> is made.
hm, at the time i wrote this my brain failed to pound into my fingers' minds
that the fsf did in fact have a documentation licence. disregard the short
rant in my previous mail.
sounds to me like what you want is either the artistic licence, which is
rather readable, and has few nastinesses (none in fact that are meaningful).
the gnu gpl is also pretty close to what you want, especially if you want to
really prevent people from for instance applying changes to your maps an
>All distributed software, papers, and other works are free to use by
>any individual, organization, or commercial venture as long as the
>above conditions are agreed to. This software may be included with any
>freely distributed Operating System provided it is not sold separately
>
> You need to have permission from Sun to grant the right of redistribution
> to those who receive copies from you. Right now it appears to me that you
> can give me a copy but but I cannot give a copy of my copy to anyone else.
yeah, otherwise you can upload jdk to master but the mirrors can't l
actually, be is not violating a licence. the bootloader/kernel use gnu
malloc, which is lgpl'ed. they use gnu termcap and crypt as well, but only
in telnet and top and they do publish the sources there.
--p.
"For a price I'd do about anything, except pull the trigger: for that I'd
need a pretty go
> However in the case of the objective C compiler I cannot see what
> would legally prevent the NeXT model. NeXT would distribute GPL'ed
> source code; which they are allowed to. They would also distribute
> some proprietary object files which just happened to be able to
> link together with the GP
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:22:18AM -0400, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > I have a question along the same lines, but in a different area. I'm
> > pretty sure situations like this have come up before, but I don't know
> > how they were handled. This is just from a discussion I had with
> > someone.
> >
> > The quick glance I gave this [OpenXML Public License (Draft)] didn't seem
> > to uncover any problems, but since it is long and convoluted I figured
> > I'd post it here to get some more eyes on it.
>
> Looks like the GPL rewritten by a lawyer being paid by the word. I'd say
> it is free, and
> Again assuming an otherwise Debian free license, can Prof. Hyatt add a
> restriction that all chess tournaments entries based upon his original
> source be clearly labeled and entered as "Crafty" or "a Crafty clone"
> and still be Debian free.
he can certainly require a statement that it is base
John Hasler wrote:
> Andrea Fanfani writes:
> > Now I have to package the other guides (user guide, network guide, kernel
> > guide etc. etc.). this books are under the licence of ldp... and I need a
> > definitive opinion: the licence of linux documentation project is or not
> > DFSG compliant ?
>
[ migrated from -vote to -legal; ionutz, i've cc'ed you too because i
don't know if you're on the list. ]
> About modifying the logos now:
> I am curious on one thing: if I can modify the liberal one, I can make
> it look like the official one. For the swirl: I remove the botle and
> make the swi
well, the mwpl does not explicitly make linking a derivation, so it does
have the 'link-with-non-free-modifications' loophole a la npl. however, i
do like the fact (at least i do when i'm wearing my gpl-liking hat, which
is sometimes) that it requires contributors to licence their modifications
und
> > it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
> > modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
>
> So does the BSD advertising clause.
subtle difference: the bsd advertising clause (which few people like anyway)
only requires a service for -advertisemen
you keep arguing about whether the notification clause is free or not with
the excuse "what if it can't be done?" that's not imho why it's not free. it
is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute modified code
to perform a service for a particular entity, apple. whether this is alw
> Also, the trailer:
>
> In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter
> into contracts to accept this license.
>
> fails DFSG point (5). There's no point telling me why apple added this
> clause - I do understand why. Nonetheless, IMO, it fails point (5).
ditto fo
> Well, it says on the opensource.org home page that the OSD "sets the
> conditions for use of this mark". It's true that the "branding program"
> page then says that the OSD itself is irrelevant and all entities that write
> their own licenses need to ask the OSI for permission to call them "Open
> It is clause 3 in ash's license that creates incompatibility with the GPL.
i was of the opinion that it's clause 4 ("all advertisements must include")
rather than clause 3 ("you may not refer to ... in advertisements) that
causes problems? at least according to rms' opinion, as expressed on
www.
hm, perhaps five pages is a bit long. i'll try to make this one a bit more
clear. ;)
* the problem: the most popular available copyleft licence around has severe
compatibility issues, even with other free software (more silly arguments
on the exact extent of this is not really productive; we k
> > [...] I am almost frightened by
> > the number of people who have never READ the GPL and yet they
> > release code under it...
>
> How many such people do you know?
at least one; i know that before i read the gpl (which was, coincidentally,
when i started learning perl and discovered that it
> As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> code into the same program.
yes, but one has to change the license of the final work in ways that
authors are sometimes unwilling and/or unable (ie the original author does
not exist/cannot be found) to do, for one reason
> This is not quite accurate. Those licenses are not restrictive enough in a
> certain sense.
>
> See, what you consider to be a problem can be interpretated as an advantage.
> If somebody writes Free Software, and wants to make absolutely sure that it
> stays free, he can use the GPL. This way, a
in a pathetic attempt to reign this flamewar in a bit, i'm going to offer
a few (ok, realliy just one, but it's big ;p) simple, factual objections to
the gpl, which knightbrd and i have both made at least twice, although the
arguments have occasionally been lost in the midst of a sea of aspersions
> It's a big problem because I see it? =p
no... it was a big problem before, but people may remember things when you
say them (for instance, i've made the exact same rant as yours this month.
i proposed the same solution to the license problem. raise your hand if you
remember that...)
it also me
> The bigger issue is then are we permitted to mix GPL and _MOST
> ANYTHING ELSE_ at all? Based on the email from RMS in December, no
> we aren't.
correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
'lesser blood'. i guess that would make rms feel dirty or
something. ;)
> If p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Remove gcc and try to compile again. It won't work. Does that mean the
> binary is a derivative of gcc?
that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly
obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique
things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without
>his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would
>rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not
>competen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> It means that someone else can't "borrow" the DNSsafe library from BIND
> without negotiating a different license with RSA. However, I fail to see
> how this restricts distribution of modified versions of BIND in any way.
it does: removing everythi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> - someday company B steps forward with an obscure algorithm patent
>that IBM unknowingly violated in their original source code.
> - if IBM cannot then revoke the wold-be-free license it could end
>up being stuck with giving people permissi
> No, it says that the work as a whole must be licensed [to ... ] under
> the >>TERMS<< of the gpl.
>
> The rights granted in the GPL have to be available to everyone, but
> if another license grants those terms that's fine.
>
> Then again, this distinction might not matter to you.
hm. now that
> Er..
>
> First: this contradicts your statement about BSD software being relicensable.
sorry, i should have said "some licenses"; namely most existing
copylefts.
> Second: even the GPL doesn't force you to put the derived work under the
> GPL -- except for the part which is already GPL, the r
> I don't believe that it is.
it's not gpl compatible in that you can't take a work that's partially
qpl and partially gpl and license it under either one. such is the
nature of the infective copyleft. (see below for a short rant on this
subject). however it -does- seem dfsg-free to me (because yo
38 matches
Mail list logo
