-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| There is no need to reference a license in a source file for it to be valid.
| Source code is copyrighted with or without referencing a license in the files
| itself. Apart from that, the old license is part of the compi
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
---
APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE
Version 2.0 - August 6, 2003
Please read this License carefully before downloading this software.
By downloading or using this softwa
Hi!
[Please Cc: me on replies, I'm not subscribed to this list -- OTOH I'll
watch the archive for answers anyway]
I wonder why the games "Beneath a Steel Sky" and "Flight of the Amazon
Queen" are in main. To me the license is quite clearly non-free, because
its for non-commercial use on
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:17:29AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> True, but the old license says 'any file that references this license', and
> none do, which makes figuring that out non-obvious just from looking at that
> part of the source tree. At first glance it looks like all the code is
> y
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:32:01AM -0500, Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
> Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
No.
> 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will
> terminate:
> (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during
>
On 2004-06-25 10:32:01 +0100 Ryan Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
This question doesn't really make sense as phrased, IMO.
"We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled
Hi,
Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11:
> 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
> reselling the game as an individual item.
>
> Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG?
AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowed to distribute it as part of
something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| Huh? The docs and the web page do *clearly* state that this is not the case.
| The web page for example says:
|
| Until today, I have rewritten large parts of the compiler, all of the
| library, completely replaced t
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:16:27AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> | What exactly is unclear about this information?
>
> That it's not in the source files themselves.
I've stated that twice: No conclusion at all can be drawn from the fact that a
source file doesn't contain or reference a license.
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:16:27AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
>> | What exactly is unclear about this information?
>>
>> That it's not in the source files themselves.
>
> I've stated that twice: No conclusion at all can be drawn from the fact that a
> source file
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> That isn't meaningful: No one argues whether the source is
> copyrighted. The question is what license applies.
But it's not me asking this question, it's you. I have always stated that the
old license is still in effect for parts
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:13:10PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > At least the splash screen of "Flight of the Amazon Queen" when you
> > start it is misleading at large, too:
> >
> > Unauthorized copying, reproduction, adoption, rental, public
> > performance, broadcast or other exploita
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
>> The usual presumption is that someone who distributes the code does so
>> (a) as the original author, (b) in accordance with some license, or
>> (c) because the code is in the public domain. If you distribute code,
>> it is your responsibility that licenses on it
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:59:14AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> There is an important difference between distributing and
> redistributing: Only the author can be the original distributor, so he
> may give the code to anyone he wishes. All redistributors have to
> have license from the original
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
> You are really making me upset. As you can see from Benjamin Cutlers attempts
> to find old code in the current sources, I could have easily claimed that all
> code was written by me - no one would have noticed. I haven't done that. In
> fact, I have marked new and
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:45:26AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Those four files you say have JRD's code in them, though, what is in
> their headers?
You are really trying, aren't you?
There is my name in three of the files. This is because I created the files at
the given date by copying c
The time to get your dream job and make what you
deserve is now!
UPGRADE YOUR LIFE :.. Speed Up Your Career
One of the quickest ways to speed up your next career
move is to obtain a university degree.
Contact us at 1 - 315 - 5 46 - 9 663 and you can literally earn
your degree in weeks, not yea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jens persson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What I found strange and RC, (but haven't acted upon yet) is that I
> could not find any source. the upstream package just contains binary
> file (queen.1c for Flight of the Amazon Queen) that is copied into the
> packa
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
> After downloading the sources, you claim that the all compiler sources refer
> to the new license. I prove this wrong. Now you're keeping up with some more
> claims, that just show that you didn't look at the original JRD sources. I'm
> maintaining my original asser
Dear subset of debian-legal contributors,
Please try to be a bit more constructive when working with upstream
developers. The debian developer reference and manuals generally
encourage *co-ordination* with upstream. Nothing that gets this
response:
On 2004-06-25 16:07:40 +0100 Ullrich von Ba
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Second, while acceptance alone does not obligate anything of you, some
> > obligations do kick in if you try to use some of the rights you have
> > been granted. For example, if you take the option to distribute
> > binaries of modifications and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
|
| Correction: You don't want to understand that. It can be easily seen from the
| fact that you accused me of "intentional muddling with licenses" before even
| looking at the source code, that it is not your intention t
Ryan wrote:
[snip]
> 1.4 "Externally Deploy" means: (a) to sublicense, distribute or
> otherwise make Covered Code available, directly or indirectly, to
> anyone other than You; and/or (b) to use Covered Code, alone or as
> part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service, including but
> no
On 2004-06-25 17:00:42 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] what we are usually talking about on debian-legal
are the agreements, not the licenses granted in those agreements.
Maybe this is indicative of a general topic drift in this list?
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > >
> > > > While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
> > > > Depend on s
25 matches
Mail list logo
