At 09:13 PM 5/27/2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>I am assuming that all files without copyright statements are
>effectively under the OpenLDAP Public License.
As Executive Director of The OpenLDAP Foundation, let me state
that I believe your assumption to be incorrect. OpenLDAP
Software is a combine
Perhaps the best thing to do is contact someone from the Wikipedia and
ask them to summarize the situation in a mail to RMS, and relate to him
whether or not they felt "burnt", or perceived a threat of inconvenience
large enough to cripple their project.
They can do that if they wa
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution
> which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement.
> The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be
> copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which U
Many thanks to everybody for your responses. As I understand, I'll have
to remove this code from argouml or move argouml to non-free... or ask
Sun to change their license ;-)
Am I right?
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
Steven,
The OpenLDAP Foundation believes it the Regents' statement grants a
license to redistribute derived works and is confident that the University,
who is quite aware of our actions (as they actively participate in them),
does not consider our actions to infringe on their rights. You are
welc
The purpose of the package was to provide an accurate, LGPL'd version of
the ISO 3166, 639 and 4217 standards., along with translations into the
various languages supported by Debian.
I was not aware of the copyright notice that you gave a pointer to; I
shall have to think about that, and get an o
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
packages like it.
Not quite -- I'd prefer t
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:19 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
All of those --
TCP, HTTP, and DEB -- are generic formats.
.deb isn't. There is, AFAIK, only one implementation.
At the very least, alien and dpkg deal with it; I believe there are
others.
If I remember correctly, alie
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 14:25 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work.
Well, from carefully reading the GPL, this appears to be what it says.
A quote:
a "work based on the Progr
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 12:22 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
First, any interface which could be used by humans is a "method of
operation". This is essentially all interfaces.
That's a good question. I think the decision only covers interfaces
that humans need to use to use the pr
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
>>> ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and
Unfortunately, other people purporting to act on behalf of the FSF do.
Did they really claim to be speaking for the FSF, or were they just
expressing support for the FSF? Anyone can do the latter, but we did
not ask anyone to speak for the FSF about this issue on this list.
(Meanwhile,
Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
so while RMS's reasoning may be to some degree inconsistent here
(advocating against one inconvenient license and for another),
This isn't
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 09:35:29PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> The purpose of the package was to provide an accurate, LGPL'd version of
> the ISO 3166, 639 and 4217 standards., along with translations into the
> various languages supported by Debian.
>
> I was not aware of the copyright not
14 matches
Mail list logo
