Re: License violation in "new" Plex86

2004-04-10 Thread Nathanael Nerode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: | Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | |>Glenn Maynard wrote: |> |> |>>On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: |>> |>>>The main author of Plex86 forked his own project (heh) to create the

Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Free Ekanayaka
Hi all, I'm the maintainer of the brutefir package and I received the mail below from Anders Torger, author of BruteFIR. Please could you answer to his question? Thanks, Free Ekanayaka PS: as me and Anders are not subscribed to debian-legal, please just keep us in Cc: when replying --

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please could you answer to his question? I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see it in the forwarded email. For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is not DFSG-free because

Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT) license

2004-04-10 Thread Anibal Monsalve Salazar
Is the following license (not subject to copyright and in the public domain) free? I think it is. However, I would like to see if there is any objection. * Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT): Linear Algebra Module * * Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division * National Institute of Technolog

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Jeremy Hankins
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please could you answer to his question? > > I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see it in the > forwarded email. I think it was whether or not it would pass the DFS

Re: Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT) license

2004-04-10 Thread Jeremy Hankins
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is the following license (not subject to copyright and in the public > domain) free? I think it is. However, I would like to see if there is > any objection. Nope, public domain stuff is perfectly fine. Just include this so that there's no co

Re: License violation in "new" Plex86

2004-04-10 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't > | appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book > | production (storyine -> script -> editor -> art -> publication), the > | characters were regarded as ve

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Anders Torger
On Saturday 10 April 2004 11.51, you wrote: > To me, the easiest course would be to issue seperate copyright and > patent licences which do not interact. We could then considers them > individually without playing "hunt the interaction" and people in > swpat-free areas (including Sweden for now?) m

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?

2004-04-10 Thread Sam Hartman
> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MJ> On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MJ> wrote: >> Please could you answer to his question? MJ> I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see MJ> it in the forwarded email. MJ>

Re: Online demonstration support against Software Patents?

2004-04-10 Thread Yven Johannes Leist
On Friday 09 April 2004 02:26, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > As I recall, lots of them said "on strike", with an obscure ("but click > here for the webpage") link. It was a stupid idea, since lots of people > (myself included) often missed the link and figured the page was simply > offline. Sorry for