From: Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, is anyone official willing to spend the few minutes
> to write an email to them, to warn them of misusing
> the Open Source trademark/whatever, or should I do it
> as a "concerned individual"? I am not be able to write
> it as nicely as some of you..
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 04:00:29PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I agree with your call on the DFSG #9 violation, it's not currently Open
> Source.
>
> > From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * You may not distribute a modified version of this software without
> >providing sour
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 03:34:38PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What about folks developing Microsoft Windows apps with djgpp or cygwin32?
>
> Microsoft's application license explicitly prohibits you from running their
> applications on a non-Microsoft
Hey all...
As I was looking for somthing completly different, I noticed somthing
interesting -- a commercial RCS client/server for Windows (Microsoft, that
is), that loudly claims to be based on GNU RCS -- but dosn't have source
anywhere obvious. Anybody care to look into it further? It's at
ht
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 07:32:40AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Hey all...
> As I was looking for somthing completly different, I noticed somthing
> interesting -- a commercial RCS client/server for Windows (Microsoft, that
> is), that loudly claims to be based on GNU RCS -- but dosn't have sour
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:44:53PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 07:32:40AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Hey all...
> > As I was looking for somthing completly different, I noticed somthing
> > interesting -- a commercial RCS client/server for Windows (Microsof
At 07:48 AM 6/14/99 -0500, Adam Rogoyski wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>> Not even. pico CANNOT be packaged for Debian! The best that can be done
>> is offer the source and let you build it yourself.
>>
>> To be blunt: Tough. Convince UW to make pico free software and get
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> >less restrictive, http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html.
> >Does it still fail the Debian Free Software guidelines?
> Definetly. "Redistribution of this release i
When I started using Debian, I was also a little startled at not having
pico.
Then I learned about joe (which provides a pico emulation via the command
'jpico'), and all was happy in the universe.
It would be nice if joe could be a main editor.
-Original Message-
From: David Starner [mai
From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This could be interpreted as saying that you must provide source code along
> with the binaries. This would make binary .deb files impossible to
> distribute.
You've got a point.
Let's get these guys to craft their license more carefully.
Thank
I'd want to see the court decision. However, you can certainly protect against
this in your license, regardless of whether it is derivative or not.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This doesn't quite seem right. In fact, I think a precident has been set to
Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> > >less restrictive, http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html.
> > >Does it still fail the Debian Free Software guidelines?
>
> | Redistribution of this release is permitted as follo
/*
* Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
*/
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> > less restrictive, http://www
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 03:25:52PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > | Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
> > | agreement:
> > | (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> > | (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concern
After a year and a half of bureaucratic wrangling, the license for the
NEdit text editor has been trimmed down to exclude some of the silly
clauses that made it questionable to Debian. I'm still a bit worried
that it only implicitly allows modification and redistribution, and not
explicitly.
Is t
On 14-Jun-99, 15:14 (CDT), Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /*
> * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
> */
posted to -legal only --sg :-)
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > | Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows,
> > | or
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 05:38:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd.
> > In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to
> > anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom.
>
> The problem I have is not AND
17 matches
Mail list logo
