On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:02:17AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> | * Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the
> | * copyright messages are not removed, and no monies are exchanged.
> | *
> | * No responsibility is taken for any errors on inaccuracies inherent
>
Greetings! The lam upstream authors just sent me this notice of their
intent to change their license from the current GPL. Does this pose
any problems for Debian?
Take care,
--
Camm Maguire[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
isn't this just the same Artistic license as Perl, etc is released
under?
looks like it (i just skimmed), in which case it's DFSG-free.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:07:18AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
>
> Greetings! The lam upstream authors just sent me this notice of their
> intent to change thei
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:07:18AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
>
> Greetings! The lam upstream authors just sent me this notice of their
> intent to change their license from the current GPL. Does this pose
> any problems for Debian?
>
> Take care,
>
The Artistic License is widely considered p
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:24:45AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:07:18AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
>
> The Artistic License is widely considered problematic, on account of
> it's vagueness. The FSF doesn't consider it a free license. I'm not
> sure if Debian has an offical s
Just some quick questions:
> --- Start of forwarded message ---
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:28:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jeff Squyres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Anas Nashif - SuSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Black Lab Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Camm Maguire - Debian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
Jeff --
These are good questions. I don't know the answers to them. It might
well be that there are too many questions, so we should be considering
some other kind of license. :-)
This will likely not affect the upcoming LAM 6.5 release; we're just
looking into the future for the moment.
I'll
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> isn't this just the same Artistic license as Perl, etc is released
> under?
>
> looks like it (i just skimmed), in which case it's DFSG-free.
Could the owners be persuaded to licence their program under the
disjunction of the Artistic license and the GPL?
This
On 20-Feb-01, 08:24 (CST), Sam TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Artistic License is widely considered problematic, on account of
> it's vagueness. The FSF doesn't consider it a free license. I'm not
> sure if Debian has an offical stance on it.
>
> Almost every piece of software that us
Hi Gang,
I'm planning to package Norm Walsh's (aka Mr. DocBook) java catalog
classes he wrote while working at Arbortext. The license simply says
it's public domain (see below).
Don't we need something that explicitly says we can redistribute this
software?
At least that's how I interpreted this
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm planning to package Norm Walsh's (aka Mr. DocBook) java catalog
>classes he wrote while working at Arbortext. The license simply says
>it's public domain (see below).
>
>Don't we need something that explicitly says we can redistribute this
>software?
S
Greetings! Hi Jeff!
Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with others that the Artistic is "problematic." Other alternatives
> to look at are the new BSD and the MIT license, if you don't mind stuff
> becoming proprietary. If you do, LGPL may be an alternative. Personally, I
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 06:11:07PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
> I am thinking that while it might not be possible to shut down a Gnutella
> or Freenet by suing the operating company, it might be possible to stifle
> development by suing individual software authors.
Yes, you're right. Be prepa
13 matches
Mail list logo
