> However, it occurs to me that there may be a way around this. It
> seems to me that once you make a modified version and rename it, the
> requirement is exhausted. Further modifications will not require
> repeated renamings.
Ingenious. However, to be on the safe side we'd p
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, it occurs to me that there may be a way around this. It
> seems to me that once you make a modified version and rename it, the
> requirement is exhausted. Further modifications will not require
> repeated renamings.
Ingenious. However, to
> > The GPL requires that you include prominent notices stating that you
> > changed the files (and the date of any changes).
>
> Yes, but it allows me to choose which form of prominent notice I use.
Not explicitly.
The GPL requires you to mark modified versions as modified,
> Does the GPL allow redistribution of deriviate works under
> a license with a "rename if certain changes are made" clause?
>=20
> No, it does not.
Out of curiosity, why not?
Because it is a restriction that is not in the GPL.
It therefore conflicts with the GPL's req
Previously Richard Stallman wrote:
> Does the GPL allow redistribution of deriviate works under
> a license with a "rename if certain changes are made" clause?
>
> No, it does not.
Out of curiosity, why not?
Wichert.
--
==
Does the GPL allow redistribution of deriviate works under
a license with a "rename if certain changes are made" clause?
No, it does not. However, it might be worth while for us to
make a specific exception to permit linking GMP with that code.
The benefits could be great, and the situati
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 06:08:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 12:18:25AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Does the GPL allow redistribution of deriviate works under
> > > a license with a "rename if certain changes are made
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 12:18:25AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Does the GPL allow redistribution of deriviate works under
> > a license with a "rename if certain changes are made" clause?
> The GPL requires that you include prominent notices stating
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 11:18:03PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > The TSS encryption algorithm implementation in tss.c is copyright Timo
> > Rinne and Cirion Oy. It is used with permission, and permission has
> > been given for anyone to use it for any
Wichert Akkerman writes:
> Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > The TSS encryption algorithm implementation in tss.c is copyright Timo
> > Rinne and Cirion Oy. It is used with permission, and permission has
> > been given for anyone to use it for any purpose as part of ssh.
>
> This viola
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 12:18:25AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Does the GPL allow redistribution of deriviate works under
> a license with a "rename if certain changes are made" clause?
The GPL requires that you include prominent notices stating that you
changed the files (and the date of any
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes the ssh-1.2.0 license:
> Any derived versions of this
> software must be clearly marked as such, and if the derived work is
> incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be
> called by a name other than "ssh" or "Secure S
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> The TSS encryption algorithm implementation in tss.c is copyright Timo
> Rinne and Cirion Oy. It is used with permission, and permission has
> been given for anyone to use it for any purpose as part of ssh.
This violates the DFSG.
Wichert.
--
=
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:18:27PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > It looks like that version of ssh really was free software.
> > I am surprised.
> >
>
> Patent issues still make it not free for most people in the US.
For less than a year, if they use RSA plus Blow
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:18:27PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It looks like that version of ssh really was free software.
> I am surprised.
>
Patent issues still make it not free for most people in the US. Considering
that the older free ssh1 version probably has bugs, and the rather odious
It looks like that version of ssh really was free software.
I am surprised.
[Note: I'm moving this to the debian-legal list.]
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am pretty sure that SSH was never free software. Could you show me
> the license on the version that they started with?
I don't know what version they started with. However, the COPYING
file incl
17 matches
Mail list logo
