As I do not know, how the "No Discrimination"-parts of the DFSG are
interpreted, I wanted to ask about the Jabber Open Source Licence
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.html), escpecially about
9b) of it:
Termination Upon Assertion of Patent Infringement. If you initiate
litigation b
Scripsit "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1) Source code for the entire package must be distributed with
> any derived work incorporating ANY part of PRAG.
> is a little vague though. Does he mean that I can not take a .c
> file and place it in another work?
What he presumably m
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>| Termination Upon Assertion of Patent Infringement. If you initiate
>| litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim ... alleging
>| that Licensed Product ... infringes any patent, then any and all
>| rights ... shall terminate.
I think c
On Mar 29, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It seems pretty clear to me that it is not DFSG-free. A DFSG program
>needs to be usable on any operating system without discrimination, and
>this license says you can use it on Linux without worrying, but if you
>merely bundle it
Scripsit Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >5. When this software or any work derived from this software is used in a
> > commercial product or bundled with a commercial product, the vendor must
> > also produce the program this software is derived from for
> > either the Linux or FreeBSD o
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But it might also be argued that making exceptions even for software
> patenteers and child pornographers is a slippery slope which we should
> stay away from.
What does "discriminate" mean, anyway? I think usually it means making
an arbitrary or unnecessary
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 29, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It seems pretty clear to me that it is not DFSG-free. A DFSG program
> >needs to be usable on any operating system without discrimination, and
> >this license says you can use it on
This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they
don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work.
Fair enough I think. :-)
Is this ok for Debian?
/*
* Copyright 1992 Purdue Research Foundation, West Lafayette, Indiana
* 47907. All rights reserved.
*
* Written by K
Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different
copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith).
It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio State.
Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)?
Copyright (c) 1990 The Ohio State University.
All
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:50:41PM +0200, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
> This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they
> don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work.
> Fair enough I think. :-)
>
> Is this ok for Debian?
Looks good to me. It's in the general MIT/BSD family
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:01:57PM +0200, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
> Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different
> copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith).
> It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio
> State.
>
> Can this be accepted
Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they
> don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work.
> Fair enough I think. :-)
>
> Is this ok for Debian?
Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
(which tu
Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different
> copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith).
> It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio
> State.
>
> Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)
Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this ok for Debian?
Yes.
--
Henning Makholm"De er da bare dumme. Det skal du bare sige til dem."
Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)?
Yes, it's basically a BSD licence. We usually tacitly ignore
the advertising clauses...
--
Henning Makholm "Nobody is going to start shouting
ab
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
"... and to alter it and distribute it freely"?
--
Henning Makholm "Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi."
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:03:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This license doesn't permit modification or distribution of modified
> versions. That might be a problem; it would be good to ask the
> authors.
Hrm, yes, I note upon review of the BSD and MIT licenses that the ones at
issue
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> > Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
>
> "... and to alter it and distribute it freely"?
While all logic and reason might say that is good enough, it at least
one no
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Still smarting from the University of Washington, eh? :-(
You betcha.
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)?
>
> Yes, it's basically a BSD licence. We usually tacitly ignore
> the advertising clauses...
The advertising clause is usually thought not to be enforceable i
I assume if these copyrights appear in the same source file, then
they must all be followed?
Haven't quite understod the importance of the date. These
copyrights (and there are actually a few more without explicit
copyright which I'm trying to locate) have
different dates.
How does the date work
Joergen Haegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume if these copyrights appear in the same source file, then
> they must all be followed?
>
> Haven't quite understod the importance of the date. These
> copyrights (and there are actually a few more without explicit
> copyright which I'm trying to
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:20:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The date is irrelevant. It just defines when the copyright expires.
Well, except in the United States, where copyrights never expire. :-P
--
G. Branden Robinson | You don't just decide to break Kubrick's
Debi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:20:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The date is irrelevant. It just defines when the copyright expires.
>
> Well, except in the United States, where copyrights never expire. :-P
It would be funny if it weren't
24 matches
Mail list logo
