Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> UCC 2A-124.2: [...] for example, "There is no
> >warranty that the goods will
> >be fit for a particular purpose".
>
> Quite simply the disclamer must be in writing and be conspicuous.
> Conspicuous is the key word there.
Even better, the example is not WRITTEN A
"Bill Allombert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Notes: (1)Insert the first year the software was made available to the
public as well as any subsequent years in which a modified version is
made available. The last two paragraphs must be in capital letters t
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 21:11 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
[[snipped]]
> >
> > OK.. now I am really confused.
> No problem ;-). Let me try to help...
> > Below is the relevant text.
> > I read this as free for non-commercial use
> Yes.
> > and non-free for commercial use.
> Correct.
> >
kris wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 19:06 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>
> [[snipped]]
>
>
>
>
No, it's not. It doesn't grant the right to be used in commercial
products, and thus fails the DFSG.
>>> I guess you mean that it doe
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 19:06 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
[[snipped]]
> >>>
> >> No, it's not. It doesn't grant the right to be used in commercial
> >> products, and thus fails the DFSG.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I guess you mean that it does allow commercial licensing
> > and therefore
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:24:50PM -0700, kris wrote:
>
> We are releasing some software and would like to
> make sure it is compatible with debian.
>
> We have been told that this is the current license to
> use for UC produced works.
> http://www.ucop.edu/ott/permissn.html
>
> I searched the
kris wrote:
> We are releasing some software and would like to
> make sure it is compatible with debian.
>
> We have been told that this is the current license to
> use for UC produced works.
> http://www.ucop.edu/ott/permissn.html
>
> I searched the archives to no avail. I notice
> that it no lo
7 matches
Mail list logo
