Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a license conflict that technically prohibits the distribution
> of your software. Most of your code contains a non-copyleft but
> permissive license. However, modem_at.c carries a GPL license.
>
> This in itself is not a huge problem. Your lic
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [I'm not subscribed to debian-legal; please cc: me with any replies.]
>
> I'm considering packaging the Spin model checker[1], but I have
> apparently lost the brain cells that might have let me understand
> the license agreement. Do you all have an
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:07:28AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The inclusion of the GPL licensed file triggers the requirements of
> > section 2b of the GPL, which requires that the entire work be GPL'd.
>
> This is not *quite* true. It requires
On 2004-01-30 05:29:40 + Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
4.0 MODIFICATIONS. You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at
Debian-legal usually views such clauses as non-free. [...]
And this is even worse - upstream wants the right to re-release my
modifications as proprieta
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:07:28AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The inclusion of the GPL licensed file triggers the requirements of
>> > section 2b of the GPL, which requires that the entire work be GPL'd.
Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
non-free? Further, is a licence saying:
You may prepare, copy and distribute derived works of this software.
However, you may not modify this work.
...specifying mutually exclusive terms? What does it mean.
I am particu
Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
> non-free?
Is there a specific definition of "mutually exclusive terms" you are
referring to?
> Further, is a licence saying:
>You may prepare, copy and distribute derived works of t
See what I mean? I hadn't even nocticed the modifications-re-release
and termination clauses.
I'll try to send them a note asking about converting to a real license,
but I think I'll pass on the package for now. Thanks for the comments!
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Scripsit [EMA
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
> non-free?
That would depend on the specific terms.
> Further, is a licence saying:
>
>You may prepare, copy and distribute derived works of this
>software. However, you may not mo
On 2004-01-30 18:16:16 + Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is there a specific definition of "mutually exclusive terms" you are
referring to?
By that, I mean terms which it is impossible to satisfy
simultaneously. If you act according to one term, you must break
another.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:49:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
> non-free?
As a general rule, it's completely invalid, so you fall back to the
default position of having no license.
However, if it contains one of those clauses that
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:49:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
>> non-free?
>
> As a general rule, it's completely invalid, so you fall back to the
> default position of having no licen
Since this issue has made it to slashdot [1], it may be the appropriate
time for some discussion here. I haven't seen any here yet, but I may
not have looked hard enough, so apologies in advance if this is old
news.
To summarize, an announcement [2] by David Dawes from last night indicates
that th
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> Since this issue has made it to slashdot [1], it may be the appropriate
> time for some discussion here. I haven't seen any here yet, but I may
Mentioning slashdot in the first line of a post isn't a good way to gain
credibility. :)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:44:30PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:49:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are
> >> non-free?
> >
> > As a general rule, it's comp
On 2004-01-30 20:12:28 + Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it was nice for a while, being able to say the "X11 license"
That left a while back. MIT/X11, X.org or XFree86?
Requiring an acknowledgement in the documentation (README) isn't
comparable
to requiring it in advertis
Hello Ben!
Thanks for so promptly reporting.
> There is a license conflict that technically prohibits the
> distribution of your software. Most of your code contains a
> non-copyleft but permissive license. However, modem_at.c carries a
> GPL license.
>
> This in itself is not a huge problem
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, MJ Ray wrote:
> There is no "X11 license" certified by OSI. What do you mean here?
I am sorry, I meant the MIT License which is essentially the same
license used by the X Consortium for X11
(http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html).
--Michael
Dear Ben and Others:
Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the draft version of
the new JasPer license. Your responses have been most helpful. I have
explained the problem associated with clause 3 (the
litigation-terminates-license clause) to Image Power, and the company
has indicat
>3. If User breaches any term of this license or commences an
>infringement action against any copyright holder then the User's
^^^
Sloppy and overbroad. This should refer to any holder of copyright in *this
Software*, at the very least
Yeeech. What a monster. It's not DFSG-free.
(1)
>3.6 You must include all of the original copyright, labels or other
>notices on the Licensed Software on any copies of the Licensed Software
>which You make; and include with the distribution of any Modifications
>You create a copy (or an offer t
paul cannon said on Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700,:
> Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the
> similarity between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising
> clause":
> The FSF is quite clear [4],[5] in that they do not consider
> licens
22 matches
Mail list logo
