On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 05:08:22PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
> > IMO the last sentence of the above-quoted clause may very well be
> > DFSG-unfree...in which case the code licensed under it should be yanked.
>
> I don't think it is. DFSG does n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:52 pm, you wrote:
> > "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > writes:
>
> Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about
> Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my he
> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about
Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my head.
Stephen> If companies are going to release under a free license
Stephen> (and get the fanfare
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[License that says ... blah blah .. under certain limitation you may
distribute this under a changed license, and then:]
> > SGI. Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability
> > incurred by SGI as a result of any such terms Reci
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:38 am, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
>
> > "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > writes:
>
> Stephen> Read it again. This is clause 3 of the supplem
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:38:07PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Proof by counter example. This is from the xfree86 licences:
>
> 2.4 GLX Public License
>
> GLX PUBLIC LICENSE (Version 1.0 (2/11/99)) ("License")
>
> 3. Redistribution in Executable Form. The notice set forth in
> E
Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Read it again. This is clause 3 of the supplemental
Stephen> terms. Clause 3 pertains to distribution of binaries:
This is Sun's supplemental terms for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[there is no indication in the headers as to whether Stephen wishes to
be CCd or not. To be safe I am CCing him]
On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 2:34 am, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> Mark> The other concern mentioned on debian-legal by Stephen
>
> Mark>
> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> I don't think that the concerns are about the extra clauses
Mark> that Blackdown added in their supplemental license. They
Mark> could be a bit more clear as has already been noted. It is a
Mark> bit unclear how "Linux
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 07:44:29AM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> Blackdown has been given permission by Sun to alter the terms of the
> licence to allow the redistribution of Blackdown released binaries by
> Blackdown mirrors and Linux distributions, not just Debian, regardless
> of whatev
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> It is probably enough for non-free, as least for the
Henning> Linux-based architectures. It couldn't be included in
Henning> Debian GNU/Hurd non-free, however.
Unless Hurd can run unaltered i386 Linux binaries, the
Scripsit Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The terms granting this permission appear at the end of the document
> James included in his email and have been generally overlooked in the
> discussion of this package. Please read those terms and let me know
> if you continue to have concerns about
Blackdown has been given permission by Sun to alter the terms of the
licence to allow the redistribution of Blackdown released binaries by
Blackdown mirrors and Linux distributions, not just Debian, regardless
of whatever else they may distribute.
The terms granting this permission appear at the
13 matches
Mail list logo
