t the US Constitution's
first amendment and the rather extensive derived jurisprudence protects
a lot of opinionated and arguably rude statements that some might
consider defamatory and that in some countries may be legally actionable
as such.
It is much better, and almost always much more productive, to avoid
personal attacks and maintain polite demeanor in discussions.
Regards,
Tom Dial
> Thoughts?
tream of us), we would not consider it acceptable either.
~tom
f the software by Lucent & has licensed spin 6.4.5
under 3-clause BSD [2].
Are there any additional legal hurdles to clear here before somebody could
move forward RE: packaging up spin for debian?
Cheers,
Tom
[1] "Bug#296369: ITP: spin -- Powerfull model checking and
softwareverificatio
I wonder what it would take to just buy the company and turn it GPLv2
It would make one heck of a kickstarter.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > I am personally trying hard to persuade Open CASCADE S.A.S. (the
> > company behind Open CASCADE Techno
cc on this mail, but I feel Sun
> people are loudly claiming to be easy to talk to, yet aren't really.
Simon's blog entry is from a while ago, so yes the comments are closed.
But you can comment here, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and/or get me on IRC (tmarble on OFTC #debian-java
ull JVM is available under GPL then running applications
on top of it *are* compatible with any license as this was the specific
rationale for adding the Classpath exception [1].
Thanks,
--Tom
[1] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
CDDL has been discussed many, many times on
d-l in the past. In light of Sun's commitment to Free Software
and our desire to make this software available to Debian
Developers and users it is apropos to work towards consensus
on the DFSG status of CDDL. I welcome your comments
and concerns.
re-written to clarify the relationship
between the FAQ and the license itself.
For further questions regarding intent please followup here
or in the jdk-distros Forum [3].
Regards,
--Tom
[1] debian-legal
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/threads.htm
[2] jpackage-discuss
https
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 23:42 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit :
>> It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
>> other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me to grok
>> was that Debian isn't as much a &qu
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Tom Marble wrote:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
>>>> + SECTION 2(c)
>>>>
>>>> There have been a series of speculations about this, despite the
>>>> clarifications of F
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
> Thanks for comming to Debconf; the discussions were interesting even
> if there were disagreements at times.
It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thi
that internally so that soon you will be able consider
Java for "main".
Respectfully,
--Tom
[1] DLJ
http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-v1.1.txt
[2] DLJ-FAQ
http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.1.txt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
There is no cost to Xiph for copying me on these. Jack and Monty are
well aware of the legal environment in which they are operating. Please
do not feel that it is necessary to remove me from this.
Tom
Thomas B. Rosedale
Browne Rosedale & Lanouette LLP
31 St. James Avenue, Suite 850
Boston
Josh, thank you for taking the time to point me to some great reading!
-Tom
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license "explanation" gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly &q
m I reading this the wrong way?
Thanks in advance,
-Tom
;couse is a way to impose other rules and cultural concept
to foregins, and probabily it is dfsg non free, but for the purpose you talk,
maybe you find it useful.
IMHO,IANAL
Tom
--- Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald Geyer wrote:
>Joachim Breitner wrote:
>>Harald
just one
license) is probably not dfsg free becouse of what requires in dealing with
logos and trademarks [1]
[0] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
[1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html on the middle of the page
Tom
--- "Paul C. Bryan" <[EM
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg > back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in
> will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section
<263 is
<>
<> 95% of the world population does not live in the US.
<
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECT
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
<--- Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, on the
<> same site, they have several zip files that are basically rom produced by running the program on directories full of ROMs, allowing match ROM images by their checksums. I'd like to package those ucon64, but they lack true lic
<--- Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<
<
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
ssian board game. One of his translators will give
me more info.
--
Tom Cato Amundsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/
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!
--
Tom Cato Amundsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GNU Solfege - free eartra
file you've looked at was not
> faked).
Got it. How about "You still need a separate licence to do so from the
owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, see the XForms copyright."?
- Tom
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 01:35:29PM -0700, Tom Lear wrote:
> > > Also I think it would be a good thing (even if not strictly
> > > required by law) to spell out explicitly that you are not
> > > purporting to relicense XForm
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Off the debian-legal list now...
>
> Tom Lear wrote:
>
> > Well I think that sentence confuses things, specifically the word
> > "separate" which to me implies separate from the licence that xforms is
> &
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Tom Lear wrote:
>
> > I'm writing the author of xfmix to request an exception for xforms, but
> > I'm not clear on a point of our suggested exception.
> >
> > + You may link this software with XForms
Oops, forgot to say to CC me on replies... I'm not subscribed.
- Tom
exception. Is that right? That would mean that we need
a separate license from the xforms people.
- Tom
29 matches
Mail list logo
