I have started packaging petris, a command line tetris clone
(http://home1.stofanet.dk/peter-seidler/).
The README says:
"LICENSE"
You can do whatever you want with the program, it's Public Domain.
(however, it would be nice of you to credit me if you found anything
of this useful).
Is thi
As of version 1.65 manpages from the POSIX standard are included with
the following copyright note:
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and The Open Group,
have given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation.
In the following statement, the phrase ``t
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:30:40PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> As of version 1.65 manpages from the POSIX standard are included with
> the following copyright note:
>
> The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and The Open Group,
> have given us permission to reprint portio
Scripsit Andree Leidenfrost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "LICENSE"
> You can do whatever you want with the program, it's Public Domain.
> (however, it would be nice of you to credit me if you found anything
> of this useful).
> Is this DFSG compliant?
Yes. (Jurisdiction that do not acknowledge au
Hi!
I think this license is DFSG-compliant, but IANAL so I ask before I'm
doing something wrong.
It appears to me that this is BSD + no advertising (4.) + 1b derived
from GPL.
thanks
Willi
ripMIME LICENSE
The following license terms and conditions apply, unle
Willi Mann V. wrote:
> ripMIME LICENSE
>
> The following license terms and conditions apply, unless a different
> license is obtained from P.L.Daniels, P.O.Box 6, Ravenswood, 4816
> Australia, or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> License Terms:
>
> Use, Mod
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:29:25PM +1100, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
> I have started packaging petris, a command line tetris clone
> (http://home1.stofanet.dk/peter-seidler/).
>
> The README says:
>
> "LICENSE"
> You can do whatever you want with the program, it's Public Domain.
> (however, i
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:01:33PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I am worried about this situation since the file POSIX-COPYRIGHT
> > doesn't lose a word about re-distribution, modifications and
> > permission to distribute changes, neither does the press release
> >
> > I'm worried in particu
As per the recent discussion, I thought I'd mention
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/21/230259.shtml (NASA Open Source
License Still Up For Discussion).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
Proposed
The original license is available at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html
and is reproduced below:
---
Copyright © 2003, 2004 X-Oz Technologies. All Rights Reserved.
Permis
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
> any, must include the following acknowledgment:
>
> "This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies
> (http://www.x-oz.com/)."
>
On 2004-02-22 16:43:36 + Willi Mann V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ripMIME LICENSE
Summary: yuck. IMO, this licence seems DFSG-free, but it is confusing.
I hope his lawyer did not charge him too much for it. Also, it has
some "lawyerbombs" for me: terms that m
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 12:46:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am not so sure anymore, after Branden has testified [:-)] that the
> author has explicitly refused to change it to a more conventional and
> unambiguous. Given that it's certainly *possible* to interpret the
> clause as meaning so
13 matches
Mail list logo
