Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's interesting. I see what you're talking about, and it would
> make collaboration among projects almost impossible.
For better or worse, Debian doesn't require that arbitrary projects be
able to collaborate. [There are Debian subsets -- e.g. GNU -- w
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 1999, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer
> > forcing the name. I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him
> > to force the name of only the executable. It would "just require[] a
> > particular name for
Mark Rafn writes:
> The same is true for two programs that require the same filename for
> their license.
That isn't what YAL does. It just requires that certain notices be in a
file named LEGAL.
> How do you include both [sets of legal notices] in your
> combination-product?
You can put the
Paul Serice writes:
> Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer forcing
> the name. I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him to force
> the name of only the executable. It would "just require[] a particular
> name for one file, not the package" (to quote you out
> > Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it
> > > forces a particular name)
> John Hasler wrote:
> > I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok). It just requires a particular name
> > for one file, not the package.
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Paul Serice wrot
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it
> > forces a particular name)
> I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok). It just requires a particular name
> for one file, not the package.
Not too long ago, we had a discussion about t
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > hm, does the gpl require the distributor of a derived work to give
> > licence to all applicable patents they own?
> No.
| You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
| exercise of the rights granted herein
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> hm, does the gpl require the distributor of a derived work to give
> licence to all applicable patents they own?
No.
> i think that's a nice feature.
I agree.
> the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it forces a
> particular name)
I Think it is
> > The quick glance I gave this [OpenXML Public License (Draft)] didn't seem
> > to uncover any problems, but since it is long and convoluted I figured
> > I'd post it here to get some more eyes on it.
>
> Looks like the GPL rewritten by a lawyer being paid by the word. I'd say
> it is free, and
James LewisMoss writes:
> The quick glance I gave this [OpenXML Public License (Draft)] didn't seem
> to uncover any problems, but since it is long and convoluted I figured
> I'd post it here to get some more eyes on it.
Looks like the GPL rewritten by a lawyer being paid by the word. I'd say
it
10 matches
Mail list logo
