Hello,
I am interested in packaging nqthm, a public version of the Boyer-Moore
theorem prover. It is distributed under the GPL. However, it has the
export restriction quoted at the end. Is it possible to distribute it ?
If it is, should the interested users living in the listed countries be
i
Hello,
What exactly must be done when trying to package an academic piece of
software, which typically has no copyright but mentions such as :
- The program is provided "as is." There is no warranty.
- may be used without restriction
- available to everyone, with no restrictions (and
Under U. S. law, Nqthm-1992 may be legally exported from the U. S. to
any country except as follows:
But of course, it would create a problem for US Debian mirrors, which
probably couldn't carry it. I had heard that Debian was considering
eliminating Non-US, but this suggests there's s
I think that software that falls under the definition of publically
available--I can go dig up a citation if you really care--can be
exported almost anywhere or at least sufficiently almost anywhere that
we ignore the problem. The only exception to this in the EAR
regulations at all seems to be cr
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Russell> Nahhh. I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you. He
> Russell> edited Debian's members words into the DFSG. Do you
> Russell> think he was wrong about the intent of the
> Russell> n
On Monday 03 February 2003 11:35, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What exactly must be done when trying to package an academic piece of
> software, which typically has no copyright but mentions such as :
>
> - The program is provided "as is." There is no warranty.
> - may be used without
"may be used without restriction" does not give you the right to distribute or
modify. Use clauses only govern actual use.
I guess the bottom line is this software is probably not to be treated as free
software unless/until the author says it is. Rather annoying I know.
Ok. Asking for
What IS the real difference between a licence and a copyright?
I am a bit confused at this point, especially because I hear the
copyright is what gives (or doesn't) give you freedom to use, modify,
distribute, etc.
On the other hand, I found that in a package I am interested in (it 's
already
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:13, you wrote:
> On Monday 03 February 2003 07:46 pm, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > On Monday 03 February 2003 11:35, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> > > - The program is provided "as is." There is no warranty.
> > > - may be used without restriction
> > > - avail
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:06, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> >>"may be used without restriction" does not give you the right to
> >> distribute or modify. Use clauses only govern actual use.
> >>
> >>I guess the bottom line is this software is probably not to be treated as
> >> free software unless/u
On Monday 03 February 2003 08:31 pm, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Monday 03 February 2003 20:13, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > But "available to everyone, with no restrictions" does give you distribute
> > and modify, since non-modification is clearly a restriction.
>
> "available" gives you the rig
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:21, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> What IS the real difference between a licence and a copyright?
> I am a bit confused at this point, especially because I hear the
> copyright is what gives (or doesn't) give you freedom to use, modify,
> distribute, etc.
>
the license is th
12 matches
Mail list logo
