On Monday 02 December 2002 12:04 pm, Walter Landry wrote:
> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The LART license is probably required reading on this subject ;-)
> > > http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/LICENSE
>
> This is pretty much the same as the
On [03/12/02 4:29], Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > according to my ITP on debian-devel and in the BTS, I'm going to package
> > tinycdb. First the current license for this package:
> > |This package is written by Michael Tokarev, base
On [02/12/02 21:14], Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > according to my ITP on debian-devel and in the BTS, I'm going to package
> > tinycdb. First the current license for this package:
> > |This package is written by Michael Tokarev, based
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
> > |at the public domain.
>
> Public domain is free. One manpage calls it something like "the only
> true free".
Indeed.
> > |This package is distributed in a hope it will be useful,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
> |at the public domain.
"Placing in the public domain" is not a valid concept in all
jurisdictions. It's not always possible to abandon copyright.
It's probably
> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The LART license is probably required reading on this subject ;-)
> > >
> > > http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/LICENSE
>
> This is pretty much the same as the BSD license. You suggested that
> you wanted to c
> Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:04:34 -0800 (PST)
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-UIDL: 1038859920.21444.elm.eurobell.net
> X-RCPT: shadowrp
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0
> tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAI
Hi,
I really like the cvscommand script for vim by Robert Hiestand
(http://www.vim.org/script.php?script_id=90) and for inclusion in Debian
(either within vim-scripts or as a separate package) I asked him about
the license. Here's what I got:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Public
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:07:36PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
> > |at the public domain.
> "Placing in the public domain" is not a valid concept in all
> j
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:56:57AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > Although technically not a license, I believe the above statement is
> > sufficient to place the code in question in the public domain. This
> > means that there is no longer a copyright on the software at all
> > (copyright has b
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:07:36PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
> > > |at the public dom
(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever
debian-legal starts discussing documentation licenses. It could be nice,
if only to ask for opinio
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> > > Yes; I'm currently looking at that and the OpenIPCore
> > > license.
> > >
>
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
> discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
>
> I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever
> debian-legal starts discussing
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> (first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
> discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
Or keep it crossposted, as there are very strong opinions on debian-legal
as well about this topic.
> I'm
On [03/12/02 16:07], Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
> > |at the public domain.
> "Placing in the public domain" is not a valid concept in all
> jurisdictions. It's n
On [03/12/02 10:52], Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:56:57AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > Although technically not a license, I believe the above statement is
> > > sufficient to place the code in question in the public domain. This
> > > means that there is no longer a co
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you
> > are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions
> > in an article)
>
> Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basi
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> >
> > > PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you
> > > are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opi
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:12:50PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> So Michael (and neither I ;-) wouldn't mind changing the current
> license text to something else to keep the code in public domain.
*Software in the public domain does not require a license*.
> So would having a copyright file sa
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> It is my opinion that Debian should produce the Debian Free
> _Documentation_ Guidelines which need not be related to the current DFSG
> (but could use some tips from it, obviously).
>
> I am willing to produce such a draft but _only_ if
Nothing contained herein can or should be construed as legal advice.
IANAL. YPANAL. IHL.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
> And even if you lift only a single chapter from a GFDLed document,
> you have to copy all of its Invariant Sections verbatim.
That should most likely read someth
PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when
you are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's
opinions in an article)
>> Mark Rafn wrote:
>>> Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basic right that
>>> Debian guarantees its
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
It would be very instructive to hear from someone as knoweled
I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
which you have to agree with "prior to downloading the code" or
something like that.
As far as I can see, this has the potiential for violating FSF
"freedom
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 18:55, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> > It is my opinion that Debian should produce the Debian Free
> > _Documentation_ Guidelines which need not be related to the current DFSG
> > (but could use some tips from it, obviou
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 20:50, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> > And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> > documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> > writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
>
> It
Martin Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the so
On 04 Dec 2002 03:11:25 +0100
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
> is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
> which you have to agree with "prior to downloading the code" or
> something
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
> an "EULA", in that the user must agree to it before using the software
> in question, we have to force them to agree to it before using it. We
> can't guarant
30 matches
Mail list logo
