Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>We should concentrate on the real problems, namely the clause of
>>venue and QPL 6c, which i have ground to believe will be no problem
>>for upstream anymore, altough i have no official answer yet, and QPL
>>3b, which still rem
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If they did not pick on this, there is sane reason to say this is
> > ok.
>
> I don't think that is a safe assumption to make in the general case,
> and I know it doesn't apply he
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And if you don't want to deal with binaries there, then rip that
>> clause off and just say:
>>
>> "You must include an appropriate, accurate, and complete copyright
>> notice on each source file."
>
> But what is an accurate, appropriate and complete co
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:00:01AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "You must include appropriate and accurate copyright notices on each
> >> source file, and in a reasonable and appropriate place in any binary
> >> file."
> >
> > Not clear enough
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they did not pick on this, there is sane reason to say this is
> ok.
I don't think that is a safe assumption to make in the general case,
and I know it doesn't apply here.
Immutable notices have been rejected from Debian before, for this same reason.
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "You must include appropriate and accurate copyright notices on each
>> source file, and in a reasonable and appropriate place in any binary
>> file."
>
> Not clear enough. A quick reader would read that you can replace the copyright
> notice by another.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:57:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The plain reading says you may not alter or remove copyright
> >> notices. That means, as far as I can tell, that you can not alter
> >> or remove such notices without breaking t
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:58:16AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Also, consider the annotation :
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't really need to be stated, since to do so would be
> >> > fraudulent.
> >> >
> >> > Do we really need to continue ar
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Also, consider the annotation :
>> >
>> > This doesn't really need to be stated, since to do so would be
>> > fraudulent.
>> >
>> > Do we really need to continue arguing about this close ?
>>
>> Yes -- the annotation is incorrect. This is much mor
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The plain reading says you may not alter or remove copyright
>> notices. That means, as far as I can tell, that you can not alter
>> or remove such notices without breaking the license. If it was
>> supposed to mean something else, surely they would hav
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:58:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thom
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:45:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> >> T
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sven Luther writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
>> >> license do
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
> >> license doesn't need to say tha
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
> >> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
>> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
>> Perhaps it could just be left out?
>
>
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
>> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
>> Perhaps it could just be left out?
>
> Given that lawyer wr
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
> Perhaps it could just be left out?
Given that lawyer wrote this licence, why did the
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
Perhaps it could just be left out?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:41:02AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > |
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > | a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > > |
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> > > software in both the QPL licence and some ot
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> > software in both the QPL licence and some other licence it is dually
> > licenced with (GPL or proprietary). The
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:30:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
> > trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
> > language above :
>
> Firs
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
> trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
> language above :
Firstly, I would think that the Trolltech annotation is irrelevant
unless INRIA have pub
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> software in both the QPL licence and some other licence it is dually
> licenced with (GPL or proprietary). The claim that this fails DFSG #1 has
> been made
27 matches
Mail list logo
