Hi legal gurus,
I'd like to know what others think about the SNNS licence [1], wrt the
DFSG.
1. Main clause says: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropri
[please cc me on responses]
hey wise people,
i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
kernel here and there, and because he added userland stuf
Yann Dirson wrote:
> 1. Main clause says: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
> SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:15, martin f krafft wrote:
> [please cc me on responses]
>
> hey wise people,
>
> i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
> selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
> advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he pat
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel
> source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all
> his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches
> for the kernel, righ
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yann Dirson wrote:
> > 1. Main clause says: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
> > SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> > conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> > copyright
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 04:20:12PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Perhaps you could get this clarified as well?
Will try. Thanks to both for the hints.
> Overall, this license reads like a GPL wannabee, with all of the
> requisite vagueness and over-reach. Any possibility of having them
> change
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, martin f krafft wrote:
>[please cc me on responses]
>
>hey wise people,
>
>i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
>selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
>advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
>kern
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
A patch to a pro
9 matches
Mail list logo
