Hi again,
Yes you are probably right. The whole license thing is rather murky.
May I ask you for some advice?
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
* have a clear no-nonsense license
* to make the library free for all open source users
* to guarantee that it stays free and
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it
> > seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that
> > particular piece of sofware.
> Have y
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Surely, if I encode the Document, and it turns up in my encoding at
> > your computer a year later, it must be either because I gave you a
> > copy (in which case you get the rights
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> 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 prese
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the author clarified his license with regard to the Python version.
The version in question now is the PSF 2.1 license[1], which is
incompatible with GPL[2]. However, I think it's DFSG free and therefore
can be packaged. Any objections?
[1] http:
Hi,
[ Quoting full text because that should go to -legal; cc'ing -legal ]
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am currently packaging latex-ucs (see #160953), being mentored and
> sponsored by Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The package is
I wasn't sure about the LPPL issues; I remember some disc
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:08:10PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> The problem that is fundamental (for me, at least) about the "ASP
> loophole" is where to draw the line. I'm currently of the opinion that
> distribution is a good line and any other is fuzzy, but I'd kind of like
> to be convinced ot
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
> > 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
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:06 am, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> the author clarified his license with regard to the Python version.
> The version in question now is the PSF 2.1 license[1], which is
> incompatible with GPL[2]. However, I think it's DFSG free and therefore
> can be packaged. Any objections
JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.
The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to
everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that
want to use it as part of a
Scripsit JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> May I ask you for some advice?
Sure.
> The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal
> but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that
> seems, to sort of, work.
We have no problem with dual-licensing schemes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:48:28AM +1100, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:06 am, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> > the author clarified his license with regard to the Python version.
> > The version in question now is the PSF 2.1 license[1],
JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not
> re-packaged and then sold by some other companies.
If by "free" you mean "available at no cost", then free software isn't
for you. Free software is about *freedom*, not a near-zero price.
One
Anthony Towns writes:
> > You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
> > to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
> > case.
>
> You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
> as compared to the BSD.
Yes I have, but
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> freedom of the possessor of the code
You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
the user of the code, and the author of the code aren
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> > freedom of the possessor of the code
>
> You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
> the user of the c
16 matches
Mail list logo
