> So be careful with derivative software and the GPL. The severability
> clauses are chilling, but so long as they're not being used in violation
> of DFSG 5 and 6 (which it looks like they're not), I can see nothing
> within the DFSG that precludes them. Again with the last paragraph, it's
> chi
> > In context of the above, someone should be able to modify
> > and use the software in a way not conformant to the MPEG-4 specifications,
> > but the license is fine in saying that modification can't be redistributed
> > (just as I can't distribute software that violates the GPL).
>
> I'm terri
> I think Debian (and OSI) needs to decide whether or not this is a
> philosophy they reject, and thus patch the hole in the DFSG/OSD. Or,
> ignore it until it becomes an actual issue. It was this kind of
> ambiguity, as well as a lack of general public interest in seeing problems
> in the OSD/DF
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
>software must display the following acknowledgement: This product
>includes software developed by Jordan Ritter.
This makes this license a nasty one, and incompatible with the GPL.
> It does not say only "any use ..is the sole responsability.."
> (disclaimer) it adds " is forbidden..".
>
> Any body who has been in far and strange countries knows how "local
> law" could be stupid, oppressive and casual, so since 'it is
> forbidden' it prevent the use in such countries where
Do you understand that patent and copyright are two completely different
areas? In the "pure GNU GPL" world you describe, there would be no patents,
so the RSA algorithm would have been free from the beginning.
> There is no need to defend your world. I understand that people
> disagree, and I'm not saying I'm right in any absolute sense. We
> don't need a flame war because I respect the other side of the
> argument. I just happen to disagree, and now I have a case in point.
I have read your message
> I release this software under the MIT license. (No, not the GPL
> license. Mainly because I do not quite understand the GPL license
> myself as I do with the MIT and the BSD types.)
MIT license is:
Do whatever you want with this. You can even branch proprietary
software a
> > Permitting the sale of GPLed derived products
>
> That is not what they are doing. The statement of intentions that were
> quoted earlier in this thread said that they want to prevent people from
> selling deriviative works, period. Nothing about closed-source.
Don't read everything as if it
RMS asked about other free-software IMAP servers. Cyrus isn't one, but
acording to one of their lawyers... their intents match the GNU GPL
I had this conversation a while ago
--- Begin Message ---
Nicol=E1s,
Let me clarify the intent behind CMU's Cyrus copyright.
It is NOT Carnegie Mello
> > If we see "License: GPLv2 or greater" we know it's DFSG compliant.
> > But... look: "License: latest GPL version" is not!
> Is anyone releasing software with that license specification?
I don't remember having seen anything like this yet. It just amused me when
I came to this. Yesh, I know,
I was thinking this:
If we see "License: GPLv2 or greater" we know it's DFSG compliant.
But... look: "License: latest GPL version" is not!
Obvious, but strange...
> The license says you can just provide AT&T with a URL.
> Is that http://www.debian.org/distrib/something?
> Should we considered AT&T notified?
> End of discussion?
No. One (just one) reason for this it's that if AT&T goes away, you can
longer notify them so you can distribute the software. The
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
speech.. =)
> > So, should we move *every* Java package to 'contrib'?
> If IBM doesn't re-license Jikes.
Don't forget that we need the class library too!
15 matches
Mail list logo
