Re: Not for commercial use - non-free?

2000-01-23 Thread Joe Drew
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 06:11:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote: > > THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF PARALLAX > > SOFTWARE CORPORATION ("PARALLAX"). PARALLAX, IN DISTRIBUTING THE CODE TO > > END-USERS, AND SUBJ

Re: Not for commercial use - non-free?

2000-01-23 Thread Bruce Perens
From: Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Probably, but this is actually the license for Descent 2. Duh! I was thinking of a different Parallax Software Inc. Thanks Bruce

Re: Not for commercial use - non-free?

2000-01-23 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote: > Non-commercial, royalty or revenue free - the end user shall not use the > computer code for revenue-bearing purposes. Well, that qualifies it for > non-free, but we can distribute it, right? Right. -- Raul

Re: DVD CCA - more bad news (fwd)

2000-01-23 Thread Richard Makin
> Is anyone working on programs to decompress/install programs without >forcing the installer to agree to a "click-wrap" EULA? First of all, in many countries, including Norway, reverse engineering is explicitly permitted by law _even_ if EULA states otherwise. Some software vendors have realis

Re: DVD CCA - more bad news (fwd)

2000-01-23 Thread Lynn Winebarger
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Richard Makin wrote: > > Is anyone working on programs to decompress/install programs without > >forcing the installer to agree to a "click-wrap" EULA? > > > First of all, in many countries, including Norway, reverse engineering is > explicitly permitted by law _even_ if E