Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think being forced to actively send changes (or changelogs) upstream
> is any different than having to produce source on demand; both discriminate
> against people who *can't* publically release changes, such as people under
> NDA.
The NDA is a
Scripsit Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, clause 6 says it only takes effect "when distributed", which is
> kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
> general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
> distribution at all?
It's not hard to come up
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 02:31:53AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> However, clause 6 says it only takes effect "when distributed", which is
> kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
> general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
> distribution at all?
I'm n
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 23:23, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> > I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must
> > hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I
> > will buy as a violation of DFSG 5
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must
> hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I
> will buy as a violation of DFSG 5; I can't see where being forced to
> provide source code
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 16:23, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> "Desert island" scenarios and so on. (Most of these are "you must send
> changes upstream", and not "you must make them available on request", but
> I don't think there's any real difference.)
I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Askin
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial
> > > developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must
> > > supply one.
> I thought
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
> > is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
>
> Yes, it is DFSG-free.
> > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial
> > developer of the Softwar
Scripsit Trent Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
> is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
Yes, it is DFSG-free.
It is not, however, GPL compatible, due to clause 6c.
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> softwa
9 matches
Mail list logo
