Branden Robinson wrote:
> [1] Sadly, in the United States, there is a legislative trend towards
> binding people to contracts they've never seen or agreed to. This,
> however, is a problem with a much larger penumbra than ordinary copyright
> licensing. The law of the land always trumps a licens
situation with the OSD
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 15:32:34 -0800
From: "Adam C. Engst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Drummond Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],"Brady R. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
Goldman <[EMAIL P
--- Begin Message ---
Richard Stallman recently contacted me about the same issue raised in your
fax. (I don't have anything to do with Modula-3 development; I just happen
to be someone at SRC whom Richard knows slightly.)
In response to Richard's request, I've obtained permission from Compaq
m
Mike Goldman wrote:
> My apologies for replying to such an old series of messages, but I just
> discovered it now when browsing through the debian-legal archives.
>
> As maintainer of the Polytechnique Modula-3 (PM3) port for Debian, this has
> serious implications for me. But m
My apologies for replying to such an old series of messages, but I just
discovered it now when browsing through the debian-legal archives.
As maintainer of the Polytechnique Modula-3 (PM3) port for Debian, this has
serious implications for me. But more importantly, it has serious implications
for
"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 21:37:13 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > There's got to be someone at Stanford who can get to him.
>
> See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html for contact
> details.
Yes, but to wait 3 months for a response to a snail mail req
Mike Goldman wrote:
> > And what about the binaries?
>
> I agree that binaries, modified or not, are a question. I will investigate
> this
> question as well as I can, but if anyone can get hold of Donald Knuth
> directly and
> obtain clarification, it may be helpf
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 11:02:21AM +0000, Mike Goldman wrote:
> > Well, it *does* address the issue of modified works. Either call it
> > something
> > other than MMIXware, or distribute pristine source plus patches.
>
> Where
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 10:14:15AM +0000, Mike Goldman wrote:
> > I don't think the license is a problem anyhow, here's my analyis.
>
> ... which does not address the two specific points I raised in my
> original mail. I am not convinc
Bruce Perens wrote:
> He is _trying_ to be DFSG-compliant but his license is mis-worded.
> Someone should contact him.
This is Donald Knuth we're talking about -- he's not easy to contact.
I don't think the license is a problem anyhow, here's my analyis.
"This file may be freely copied and dist
Hi Craig,
> > Are you in any way interested to see portsentry included in the next
> > official debian release. I(but not just me) would really like to include
> > portsentry into the upcoming release(potato), but this would require some
> > rather small changes in the copyright to meet the debian
As many of you know, Jikes has now been released under the new
IBM Public License Version 1.0. I have seen this new license discussed
on Debian-Legal in recent weeks, but the end decision seemed to me
inconclusive on whether or not this qualified as DFSG-free.
The subject is no longer merely acad
David Starner wrote:
> Not merely a "religious" objection? Why should your objection to injuring
> persons & property be treated any different from a Jew's objection to his
> code being used for non-kosher foods or an animal right's person's
> objection to his code being used to hurt or imprison a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes, it would be non-free. Theft is a field of endevor. Note that Berkeley
> > has a program (or so I've heard) that still prohibits South African police
> > from using it, because of their past history, and nobody has changed
David Starner wrote:
> At 11:15 PM 7/31/99 -0400, Mike Goldman wrote:
> >PM3: Polytechnique Montreal Modula-3
>
> >The only open question, which I have been discussing on debian-legal, is
> >whether this package needs to go into non-free or whether it can go into
> &
--- Begin Message ---
PM3: Polytechnique Montreal Modula-3
The Modula-3 distribution of Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal is based
on the DEC SRC Modula-3 programming environment.
Modula-3 is a systems programming language that descends from Mesa,
Modula-2, Cedar, and Modula-2+. It also resemb
To the extent that it is "US specific" in its discrimination, I suppose it is
actually *good* -- this means it is unrestricted for use by the government of,
say, Canada or France. Indeed I do not think there is any restriction against
their use.
FWIW, this license is for software which has not be
Need a legal opinion on the following license. I assume #9 causes this
to be classifiable as "non-free" (pity, though) -- the only other
concern I had was whether #8 posed any sort of problem for our including
software under this license in Debian.
1. Grant Of License. [Company name], having a pri
Seeking opinions on the following license. I am concerned by Sec. 6,
Export Law Assurances. Might this even prevent inclusion in Debian
"nonfree"?
*** Software License
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT "LICENSE" CAREFULLY BEFORE
DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE
Bruce Perens wrote:
> After a day of study, it appears that while the draft IBM Jikes license
> I approved is Open Source, the released license, which I was not given
> a chance to vet, is not in my opinion an Open Source license. I'm
> reporting this to the Open Source initiative board for them t
20 matches
Mail list logo
