On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:33:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Now, maybe the latter is what Trolltech *means*, but it's not what the
> license *says*. When we've got representatives of the FSF asserting
> that there is no fair use right to private modification because of the
> _Texaco_ case,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
> because it prevents me from making modifications without granting
> everyone the right to take them proprietary. However, it is hard to
> pin this kind of unfreedom to a specific point in the DFSG.
Wouldn't this principle als
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
>
> > b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a
> >non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial
> >developer of the Software t
Scripsit Jakob Bohm
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading
> > 1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified
> > source, if you make your modifications available under Thi
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
>
> patches. The following restrictions
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the
> >Software.
> >
> > This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not
> > distribution
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:01:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> > modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
> >
On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:06 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Fair Use does *not* allow you unlimited rights to create derivative
> works. It might suck, but it just doesn't. Copyright law restricts
> copying and the preparation of derivative works, even if you don't
> distribute the derivati
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the
>Software.
>
> This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not
> distribution of modifications that do this. We should encourage
> licensors to be more clear ab
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
>
> patches. The following restrictions
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a
> > > problem, even if you object t
11 matches
Mail list logo
