On Nov 18, 2003, at 14:07, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to
inform
;;;th
On Nov 18, 2003, at 05:55, Andrew Suffield wrote:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to
inform
;;;the
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:07:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> The maintainer might want to contact the upstream author (Olin
> Shivers) who I suspect would be willing to get the license changed.
> If he gives you any trouble feel free to invoke my name as follows:
> "if these lame clauses ar
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 12:22:50PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Regarding acknowledgements in papers, yes... one of my major
> professor's works has an acknowledgement to "Dr. Smirnov for
> stimulating critical thought processes" [iirc... don't have it in
> front of me.]
Is that the "Doctor Smirn
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:05:57AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
> >>
> >> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
> >> return
> >> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
> >> make,
> >> ;;;
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you aren't. I've never met an academic who did this unless it was
> actually relevant to the talk. Normally you just put a footnote in
> the associated paper.
Often you'll see an acknowledgement/thanks page in talks which lists
who actually did the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
>> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of
>> the wording.
> All I fou
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of the
> wording.
All I found was the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:55:23AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
> > Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
> > some more opinions
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:05:57AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> ;;; 3. All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software
> >> ;;;shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual
> >> standards
> >> ;;;of acknowledging credit in academic research.
> >
On 2003-11-18 19:07:18 + Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
aren't removed, Barak Pearlmutter cannot guarantee that he will not
give your phone number to his ex-wife." That should get results.
What, no automatic weapons?
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This clause is moot, because "The T Project at Yale" has not existed
> for the last fifteen years.
I grabbed the source and looked at it. As Daniel wrote, there are
three files with this clause in them.
The one that references the T Project implem
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a)
> > ;;; to return to the T Project at Yale any improvements or
> > ;;; extensions that they make, so that these may be included in
> This clause is moot, because "The T Project at
> > might want to contact the upstream author (Olin Shivers) who I
> > suspect would be willing to get the license changed.
>
> All parts under Olin Shivers's copyright are already relicensed to BSD
> no-ad. The issue remaining are in files that bear another copyright
> notice, from another holder
> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they make,
> ;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
> ;;;the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software.
T
(I'm the new maintainer of the Debian package of scsh)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:07:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
>> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
>> make,
>> ;;;
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
>> We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
>> Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
>> some more opinions on the following two c
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
> > ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
> > make,
> > ;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
> > ;;;th
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:55:23AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
> > Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
> > some more opinions
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
> Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
> some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
> source files.
>
Hi!
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files.
scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
;;; 2. Users of this software agre
21 matches
Mail list logo
