Hi!
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files.
scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
;;; 2. Users of this software agre
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
> Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
> some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
> source files.
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:55:23AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
> > Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
> > some more opinions
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
> > ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
> > make,
> > ;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
> > ;;;th
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
>> We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
>> Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
>> some more opinions on the following two c
(I'm the new maintainer of the Debian package of scsh)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:07:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
>> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
>> make,
>> ;;;
> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they make,
> ;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
> ;;;the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software.
T
> > might want to contact the upstream author (Olin Shivers) who I
> > suspect would be willing to get the license changed.
>
> All parts under Olin Shivers's copyright are already relicensed to BSD
> no-ad. The issue remaining are in files that bear another copyright
> notice, from another holder
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a)
> > ;;; to return to the T Project at Yale any improvements or
> > ;;; extensions that they make, so that these may be included in
> This clause is moot, because "The T Project at
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This clause is moot, because "The T Project at Yale" has not existed
> for the last fifteen years.
I grabbed the source and looked at it. As Daniel wrote, there are
three files with this clause in them.
The one that references the T Project implem
On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:16, John Goerzen wrote:
This is only useful if you do not have a valid defense for the problem
already. In other words, it is only useful as a strong-arm tactic to
let
your own company effectively ignore patents of others. After all, if
the
lawsuit filed against you
On Nov 17, 2003, at 13:35, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I'm a software developer. So the services of one may, under some
circumstances, cost me nothing at all (except my spare time). I
don't think
patent lawyers can get cheaper than
On 2003-11-18 19:07:18 + Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
aren't removed, Barak Pearlmutter cannot guarantee that he will not
give your phone number to his ex-wife." That should get results.
What, no automatic weapons?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>
> > Thanks. I think the new S5 looks like this:
> > 5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
> > entity (including a cross-claim or counterclai
14 matches
Mail list logo
