Steven,
The OpenLDAP Foundation believes it the Regents' statement grants a
license to redistribute derived works and is confident that the University,
who is quite aware of our actions (as they actively participate in them),
does not consider our actions to infringe on their rights. You are
welc
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution
> which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement.
> The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be
> copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which U
At 09:13 PM 5/27/2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>I am assuming that all files without copyright statements are
>effectively under the OpenLDAP Public License.
As Executive Director of The OpenLDAP Foundation, let me state
that I believe your assumption to be incorrect. OpenLDAP
Software is a combine
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:23:30PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> In the HC (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should'
> do this and a 'should' do that. If those are to be interpreted as
> 'must' then they conflict with the GPL. 'should', however, can also
> be interpreted as a
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 10:26 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
I used to have an additional clause in my freeware licenses - "A copy
of all
modifications must be sent back to the author."
Please be aware that clause fails the DFSG. Its OK to request that, of
course.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:49:59PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> > As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely
> > GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not
> > misrepresent
> > the origin of the work. The problem arises if we understand your
> > license
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi Howard,
Hello there
> As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely
> GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not
> misrepresent
> the origin of the work. The problem aris
Hi Howard,
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:26:06PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Frost
>
> > Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL
> > interaction. In the UoC license (R
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Frost
> Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL
> interaction. In the UoC license (Regents of the University of
> California Berkley) there is the infamous 'advertising
>./libraries/libldap/os-local.c
> OpenLDAP Foundation - OpenLDAP Public License
> Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT
> DISTRIBUTABLE
> PADL Software Pty Ltd - No Statement
The intention was for this file to be distributable under the terms
of the OpenLDAP Public
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> s/license/complete copyright notice/
>
> That is, read the whole COPYRIGHT file (and then read some more).
Very well, I've done so. The results of my work bring up a number of
questions, perhaps opening up a larger can of worms than was expected.
I
11 matches
Mail list logo
