Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ummm, where do you see this in the Artistic License? It says that you
> can't charge a fee for the package, but you can charge whatever you
> like for the act of transferring. How is that going to accomplish
> Joe's aims (to get a cut for every copy so
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You might try to just raise a few questions:
> >1. Does any version of GPL restrict how much money redistributers
> > can charge for the software?
>
> The artistic sort of does, but that's not really a VERSION of the GPL
> _per se_, it's a completely diff
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, John Galt wrote:
> >You might try to just raise a few questions:
> >1. Does any version of GPL restrict how much money redistributers
> > can charge for the software?
>
> The artistic sort of does, but that's not really a VERSION of the GPL
> _per se_, it's a completely diff
e.
>
>Kind regards
>
>Andreas.
>
>-- Forwarded message --
>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:38:49 -0800 (PST)
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Tille Andreas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Debian Package for Phylip
>
>
>Andreas Tille --
&g
On 22 Nov 2001, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Tille, Andreas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Joe just tried to clean up my rather confuse posting. Just forget about
> > that and try to find a suggestion for a DFSG free license which complies
> > with Joes requirements.
>
> > 1. Does any version o
Scripsit "Tille, Andreas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joe just tried to clean up my rather confuse posting. Just forget about
> that and try to find a suggestion for a DFSG free license which complies
> with Joes requirements.
> 1. Does any version of GPL restrict how much money redistributers
>ca
--
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:38:49 -0800 (PST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tille Andreas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian Package for Phylip
Andreas Tille --
> Moreover I cleaned up the lines a little bit. Sorry for the inconvience
> and the long posting.
I doubt anyone
The GPL does allow any company to take GPL'ed code and make a commercial
product derived from it. Note that I said commercial product, not
proprietary. To respect the license, they would have to distribute the
source code of their derived products along with any binary they sell, and
they would
On 22 Nov 2001, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Hm, as far as I can see from the list archives, you posting was a very
> hard-to-read one (no introduction to the problem, lots of badly
> formatted quotes before any real text begins, etc.). Perhaps if you
> repeated your question more concisely somebody w
Scripsit "Tille, Andreas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Thu, 25 Oct 2001 I wrote to Debian legel the message
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00161.html
> but got neither privat response nor gives archive search any hint
> about a response.
Hm, as far as I can see
Hello
on Thu, 25 Oct 2001 I wrote to Debian legel the message
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00161.html
but got neither privat response nor gives archive search any hint
about a response.
I wonder if this is no interesting question fo debian-legal or
if ther
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Sorry for the long quotings. They are just included to get the people
of Debian-legal informed.)
(Sorry once more Joe, I misspelled the debian-legal address in my first
porsting.)
> > there are many changes. Perhaps you have a look at the diffs. T
12 matches
Mail list logo
