Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's
>> license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license
>> to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
> the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the
> GPL.
There is still the point that the shareware binaries presumably
contain some code to check their time limit.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:07:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
> > a registration.
>
> After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
> th
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's
> license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license
> to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't have the
> right to prepare that work, much less l
> Raul Miller writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
> > > a registration.
> >
> > After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
> > the shareware is a distributi
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
> > a registration.
>
> After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
> the shareware is a distribution charge, wh
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
> a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL.
No
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases --
> >> including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the
> >> ori
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases --
>> including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the
>> original work from the original author, and to the derivative
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's
> > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so
> > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [Th
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases --
> including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the
> original work from the original author, and to the derivative work
> from the upstream. But the original aut
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:38:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Let us call them the package maintainer and patch contributor.
It's a bit more complicated than that. We have seven people listed
in the AUTHORS file for xchat 1.2.0, with "many others" mentioned in
a footnote. Most of the sources
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's
> > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so
> > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's
> contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so
> long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument
> that the upstream author can'
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists.
>> But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the
>> upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much
>>
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists.
> But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the
> upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much
> less license it.
Assuming the upstream author h
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
>> GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
>> may have been revoked.
>
> GPL §4. You may not copy, m
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
> GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
> may have been revoked.
GPL §4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
Program exce
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
may have been revoked.
-Brian
Am I correct in my reading of the GPL that the upstream losing his
license is only a problem
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
may have been revoked.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen writes:
> On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
> >
> > I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
> > > Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
> > > A. The Windows v
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2004, 16:36 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
> Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd
> sources, then we have a problem.
If it only applies to the windows sources/binary, we don't have a
problem. If anybody has a problem, then those who contrib
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
>
> I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
> > Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
> > A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may
Hello.
Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
> Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
> A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still
> download the source code, released under the G.P.L.
> You may use X-Cha
24 matches
Mail list logo
