On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi,
> rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false
> statements included in the upstream author's answer, I will just
> recommend you to reply him something similar to the following:
That's an excellent advic
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:25:17 +0100 Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
[...]
> I have ask the upstream author Paul E. Jones .
> Here are the answer:
[...]
Hi,
rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false
statements included in the upstream author's answer, I will just
recommend you t
Hello,
first thanks for your answers.
The files we talk about are utils/sha1.cc and utils/sha1.h from[1].
I have ask the upstream author Paul E. Jones .
Here are the answer:
[quote]
Jörg,
Sad that one would read into this more than is written. Because it
doesn't say you can use the software
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Ian Jackson writes:
> >
> > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders
> > > and get them to fix the licence for this particular program.
My main point is: When the copyright ho
Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
> > get them to fix the licence for this particular program.
>
> Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is
Ian Jackson writes:
> I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
> get them to fix the licence for this particular program.
Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is
an existing, well-understood, known free-software license such as Apache
L
Jörg Frings-Fürst writes ("Freeware Public License (FPL)"):
> a short question: is this license DFSG compatible?
Sadly there isn't permission to modify. I think this is probably
unintentional.
I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
get
2016-10-29 18:11 GMT-02:00 Ben Finney :
>
> Because no other DFSG freedoms are granted, those remain reserved to the
> copyright holders.
>
> So a work under this license would be non-free.
I agree. I can't see rights for modify the source code. This and other
rights must be explicit in license t
Jörg Frings-Fürst writes:
> a short question: is this license DFSG compatible?
The DFSG does not apply to licen texts in isolation. It applies to works
for distribution in Debian. A particular license is only one aspect of
the work to consider.
> Freeware Public License (FPL)
Which wo
Hello,
a short question: is this license DFSG compatible?
Many thanks
CU
Jörg
[quote]
Copyright (C) 1998, 2009
Paul E. Jones
Freeware Public License (FPL)
This software is licensed as "freeware." Permission to distribute
this software in source and binary forms, including inc
10 matches
Mail list logo
