On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:59, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the
> >differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it
> >applies to?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> In the X11 license:
>
> "Permission is
On 10-8-2004 00:49, "Glenn Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I propose to built netatalk (with GPL licence) against OpenSSL (a non-GPL
>> licence) and distribute the whole with the GPL licence. How does that
>> violate the GPL?
>
> You can't distribute the whole under the GPL. You must adhe
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
2. Don't break threads.
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Pay more attention. :-)
>
> The warranty disclaimer is not a condition of the license; it's not a
> condition of any sort, simply an assertion that there is no warranty.
> Now
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the clause QPL
6c problem.
The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, but consensus about it h
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:56:08AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> OK. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it, and in fact
> would argue that this
parse error
> Since your opinion forms the majority, that is the end of that.
Well, the correct answers to legal issues are not, gener
On 10-08-2004 11:24, "Glenn Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the record, this is my opinion:
>> If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but
>> no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is
>> present. However, it can just as well
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the
license for "The Compiler" is described as the QPL version 1.0, whil
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:43:06AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the
> >ocaml
> >3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
>
> I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that t
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian M Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
s
Sven Luther said:
>
> No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
> is
> why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
>
> The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so
> it
> is less problematic.
Ok, one "apt-get insta
On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal
flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge
release
than nit picking here.
Well, don't post flamebait to debian-legal that seems to s
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:41:51AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Sven Luther said:
> >
> > No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
> > is
> > why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
> >
> > The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified th
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal
> >flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge
> >release
> >than nit pic
You are right. this will render nmap undistributable by Debian.
--
br,M
On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being
posted to
debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA.
Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times
Hello all,
I am emailing the list to ask your advice regarding a collection of licences
which the doom engine and related engines have been licenced under. This is in
relation to bug #264816 , `doomlegacy-sdl: combines incompatible, non-dfsg
licences'.
The doom computer game consists of two main
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being
> >>posted to
> >>debian-legal, if you
On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, "derivative work" is a specific legal term,
defined
by law, not individual licenses.
I've been told it's not in English law, which is why licences which
choose English law should either define it or fin
* Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040809 13:42]:
> 2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make
>the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
Not if he want to still use code for which he only has GPL as licence
allowing him to incorporate it.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
> propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
> it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
This is the same thing; they link agai
@ 10/08/2004 15:05 : wrote Mahesh T. Pai :
Humberto Massa said on Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:21:56AM -0300,:
> You are right. this will render nmap undistributable by Debian.
Who's right? and why?
web interface in lists.debian.org did not play nice with my work mail
server, proxy and my moz
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>The X license also says permission is granted "subject to the following
>conditions" (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
anything of the sort.
Are we perhaps talking about enti
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
All right.
>2. Don't break threads.
This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine
>On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Pay more attention. :-)
>>
>> The warranty disclaimer is not a co
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 06:32:51PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >As I understand it, "derivative work" is a specific legal term,
> >defined
> >by law, not individual licenses.
>
> I've been told it's not in English law, which is
On 2004-08-10 21:05:32 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
There's a parallel, synonymous term in UK law. Any reasonable court
should accept it as a synonym.
Relying on a reasonable court unless it's really certain might be seen
as a lawyerbomb. What is the synonymous term? Give
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:14, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >The X license also says permission is granted "subject to the following
> >conditions" (note the plural);
>
> What X license are you reading? I'm reading
> http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply does
Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>Another vendor using the Debian domain. I'm not sure if there is
> >>anything we can do about it but though at least you'd like to know
> >>someone has done this in Japan.
> >
> > Hmm, should we try to claim not to use debian domain?
> > I'm not familiar about domain name
All,
I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
apologies for the delay in closing this out.
I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
on a GPL-compatible commons deed. While I believe that such a deed
would be in the interest of the community gene
> licenses in that file, the phrase "subject to the
> following conditions:" is found in the SPI license, the XFree86 license,
> and the X Consortium license. It is not in the license that started this
^^^
That word shouldn'
Hi,
I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if
Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12:
> They later released it under the GPL licence[2].
is true, then
> 1) The original ID licence and the heretic/hexen licence are both incompatible
>with the GPL and thus attempts
FYI..
--
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Greetings All,
Version 0.2 of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception has been released.
The MySQL FLOSS License Exception is an extension to the terms and
conditions of the GNU General Public License (GPL) that increases the
compatib
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:36:10 +0200, Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't check the sources, but from your description, if
>
> Am Di, den 10.08.2004 schrieb Jon Dowland um 17:12:
> > They later released it under the GPL licence[2].
>
> is true, then
>
> > 1) [snip]
>
> is not true
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
> I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
> apologies for the delay in closing this out.
Not at all, thank you for pursuing this.
> I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
> on a GPL-c
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
> the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
> As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
> clause QPL 6c problem.
Great!
> Th
Martin Schulze said on Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:32:30PM +0200,:
> It may be worth discussing the issue with the vendor and signing a
> 'trademark use agreement' or something, so that this is a valid use
> of the trademark and of the Debian name -- assuming it is a valid
> use, of course.
Ha
35 matches
Mail list logo
