Hi,
[Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
the check, i've some doubts about the license:
Quoting debian/copyright:
IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by Michael Sandrof. You have the
right to copy, compile, and maintain this software.
Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
>> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
>
>> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking t
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
Giving away
CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose
you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask
them to give the latter back to you.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
>
> I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> the check, i've some doubts about the license:
>
> Quoting debian/copyright:
>
> IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by
Hi!
Here is some combination of the Chinese Dissident and Fred the Lawyer
tests.
Consider the following situation. There is a program written in
Europe. Someone in USA (say, Fred the USA dissident:-) takes this
program and incorporates some form of encryption which is illegal to
export from USA.
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> I don't think it's a horror story at all. Have you been paying
>> attention to my recent posts?
>
> Well, actually I guess I got kind of muddled. I did notice since
> then that you appea
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 12:46, Simon Law wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> [..]
> > Reading the source (source/irc.c):
> > [...]
> > * Written By Michael Sandrof
> > * Copyright(c) 1990
> > * See the COPYRIGHT file, or do a HELP IRCII COPYRIGHT
> > [...]
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> the check, i've some doubts about the license:
http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html
Michael Sandrof, Troy Rollo, and Matthew Green are putting the ircII code
un
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
>
> I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> the check, i've some doubts about the license:
>
> Quoting debian/copyright:
>
> IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It doesn't appear that we have the right to redistribute the
> Sandrof code.
[...]
> I highly recommend that you file a bug requesting the removal of
> this package.
No. Check the other ircii-based packages; Michael retro-actively
re-licensed
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:26, Simon Law wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
> >
> > I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> > the check, i've some doubts about the license:
> >
>
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> > the check, i've some doubts about the license:
>
> http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html
>
> Michael Sandro
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> > > the check, i've some doubts about the
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:17, Simon Law wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:01:35PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> > Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall.
>
> The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so
> they could be copied by employees. [Hence the inter
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Oops, I confused myself. This phrase "all third parties that receive
> > copies indirectly through the recipient" is still there.
>
> Could you state again what problem you have wi
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the
> > software, access to the source code for the software
>
> No, this misstates my position. Possessors of the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:04:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > 1. requiring that modified source be distributed as patches+original
> > > (so, no public CVS, since cvs co gives fully-merged source).
> > We have a genera
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, what if I played it through my web server? I don't give you
> the DVD and I don't let you access the menu directly, so I am not
> distributing the work through the web, I'm just playing a video
> using some streaming video format. Now that is clea
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:15:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the
> > > software, access to the source code for the software
>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a
> > > problem, even if you object t
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
> in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
> [1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I presume this was like Solaris's /
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:48:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think we have two sorts of free licenses. One set, which includes BSD
> and GPL licenses, which basically give users and authors the same rights;
> and the other set, which includes the QPL and licenses with patch clauses,
> which g
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to be good enough for
> > Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that they used when
> > making that decision will be persuasive to other users of the QPL.
>
> The licensing of t
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> HOWEVER, I find it worrying that the legal venue is stated as
>
> | This license is governed by the Laws of the State of Texas and any
> | disputes shall be decided by mediation.
>
> Does this mean that the user has to submit to s
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:31:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote:
> > > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
> > > be used also under the terms of
Package: whois
Version: 4.6.2
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient. Neither
is the debian/copyright file. Since the maintainer is also the upstream
author, I presume that he actually _does_ want to license whois under
the GNU GPL. I have pr
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
> > in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
> [...]
> > [1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
> people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
> You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
> to declar
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective
> way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our "deprecation" of such
> licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating
> the "spiri
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:08:10PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Here's the continuum I see:
>
> a) Joe opens a business "Joe's Typesetting Service". His customer brings
> in handrwitten pages, Joe uses GPL software (some of which he's modified
> to fit his work patterns) to enter, typeset, and print
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Copyright (c)
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> withou
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:37:11PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a "BSD-type" or say "maximally
> > free" non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it).
>
> You're looking for the Modified BSD or so called, 3-clause
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
> > people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
> > You do need
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:08:10PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> The challenges:
> In which cases should Joe be forced to give his program to his customer?
IMO none of them: distributing software to customers is too significant
a technical burden over and above presenting the output of software
to cus
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he
> didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer
> to the legal scope of copyright law.
Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well
equiped to a
36 matches
Mail list logo
