On 2003-10-10 01:19:34 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MySQL's interface library was changed to GPL, from LGPL. This isn't
a no-
commecial-use (which would be non-free), but it has the same effect
in most
cases.
Please do not make such misleading statements. There are many
c
Mathieu Roy said:
> A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
> explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
>
> "0. This License applies to any program or other work which
> contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> Basically, since we are _not_ modifying source to any software, I had
> always thought that this is a slam-dunk. However, once I read that
> MySQL page, I have doubts. Am I misinterpreting it?
You should be aware that that page
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:01:36PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> Also, in order to manage problems and maintain SLA's, this software is
> to be sold as an integral piece of a system -- somewhat of a blackbox.
> In other words, their customers will pay one basic price, and receive an
> installed
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:10:24PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> As I commented in response to David, I had always assumed that, so long
> as we do not modify source code, GPL allows distribution of this sort.
> Once I read the MySQL licensing page, I have doubts.
Eh? Whether you've modified
On 2003-10-10 02:10:24 +0100 Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I commented in response to David, I had always assumed that, so
long
as we do not modify source code, GPL allows distribution of this sort.
Once I read the MySQL licensing page, I have doubts.
MySQL would surely like
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:10:10:22:25:34+1000] scribed:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:10:24PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> > As I commented in response to David, I had always assumed that, so long
> > as we do not modify source code, GPL allows distribution of this sort.
> > Once
I recently did an ITP for swiss-ephemeris which computes astronomical and
astrological data. Nobody commented then and it looked ok to me however
James rejected it with the following comment:
> I'm a little concerned about the license on this software, in
> particular, this phrase:
>
> "without
Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:10:10:22:25:34+1000] scribed:
>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:10:24PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
>> > As I commented in response to David, I had always assumed that, so long
>> > as we do not modify source
Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nobody commented then and it looked ok to me however
> James rejected it with the following comment:
> > I'm a little concerned about the license on this software, in
> > particular, this phrase:
> > "without any charge beyond the costs of data t
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if
> - you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a
> reasonable copy charge
> - or/and you develop and distribute software which is not published under an
> O
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Clause 6 is non-free according to the DFSG because of the phrase you
> cite; it prohibits distribution for profit.
I read that clause slightly differently... the 'without any charge
beyond the costs of data transfer' seems only to apply to the source
c
On 2003-10-10, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Nobody commented then and it looked ok to me however
>> James rejected it with the following comment:
>
>> > I'm a little concerned about the license on this software, in
>> > particular,
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Clause 6 is non-free according to the DFSG because of the phrase you
> > cite; it prohibits distribution for profit.
> I read that clause slightly differently... the 'without any charge
> beyond the costs
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>> If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if
>> - you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a
>> reasonable copy charge
>> - or/and you develop and distribu
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm, there's one point here that others haven't mentioned yet. The
> SLAs should not forbid the customers from making modifications to
> the GPLed software, because that would contradict section 6 ("You
> may not impose any furthe
Summary: The licence appears DFSG-free, although it could be more tightly
written to make that a bit clearer. The preamble, however, is either really
badly worded, or shows that the authors interpret the licence to be
non-free.
If we go just based on the licence text, then I think you're OK. But
Let me add some reference information.
All these issue started from this web page and there is a English
version of web page available by an extra one-click.
http://khdd.net/kanou/fonts/stolenbitmap.html
Also this site has some reference to the previous Japanese case:
"Compensation was granted
18 matches
Mail list logo
