John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > hm, does the gpl require the distributor of a derived work to give
> > licence to all applicable patents they own?
> No.
| You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
| exercise of the rights granted herein
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it
> > forces a particular name)
> I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok). It just requires a particular name
> for one file, not the package.
Not too long ago, we had a discussion about t
Seeking opinions on the following license. I am concerned by Sec. 6,
Export Law Assurances. Might this even prevent inclusion in Debian
"nonfree"?
*** Software License
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT "LICENSE" CAREFULLY BEFORE
DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE
> > Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it
> > > forces a particular name)
> John Hasler wrote:
> > I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok). It just requires a particular name
> > for one file, not the package.
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Paul Serice wrot
Paul Serice writes:
> Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer forcing
> the name. I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him to force
> the name of only the executable. It would "just require[] a particular
> name for one file, not the package" (to quote you out
5 matches
Mail list logo
