Quark Express 6.0 - 60
Adobe Photoshop 7.0 - 60
Borland Delphi 7 Professional - 70
Macromedia Studio MX 2004 - 180
Easy CD & DVD Creator 6 - 29
Quark Express 6.0 - 60
Linux Redhat 7.3 - 200
Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11 - 120
Adobe PageMaker 7.0 - 60
Linux Redhat 7.3 - 200
and a lot more htt
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be
> interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among
> other things, flamewars on -legal). That makes DFSG #10 a no-op. I
> argue that DFSG #10 enforces a
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the original French, the first sentence grants permission to *add*
> GPLed code to the work and distribute the combination under the
> terms of the GPL, and the second sentence grants others permission to
> continue distributing t
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:26:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:35:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, did you heard the case where, i think it was california, decided that
> > it
> > could sue people all over the world ?
>
> You seem to get a different version o
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Of course, I suspect TrollTech (and other copyright holders that use the
> QPL license) didn't think about such a possibility. That's because the
> usual choice for "any other license(s)" is one or more proprietary
> license(s) that
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:11:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You have some very strange mail headers:
>
> From: Nicolas CANIART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mail-Followup-To: ".no-spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>
> If you're trying to prevent your mail address fro
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:11:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:26:00AM +0200, Nicolas CANIART wrote:
> > > I've read with interest the thread[1] about the new CeCILL licence.
> > > But the debian c
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:08:39 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > However, if you really want to know how DFSG 3 was intended then you
> >
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]:
> > It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers
> > about licensing issues. Legal text is very dif
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:33:26AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> Branden Robinson:
> >>> Josh Triplett:
> >>>The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says
> >>>"obtaining, using a
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:59:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > What brought about this change of heart?
[...]
> Historical context can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive.
Oh yeah, and lest you think you've "caught me o
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:48:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > This is also a more general issue: how do we deal with licenses that we
> > > can't read, in the general case? We assume that Debian users can read
> > > English well enough to understand license grants, but we can't assume
> > > t
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:35:10PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Now, I can infer one of three things:
>
> 1. You had off-list contact with the X-Oz people before the license was
> analyzed here on -legal, and did not communicate their non-standard
> interpretation of that clause back to us for th
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
>
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hello Brian,
> >
> > * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]:
> > > It can be really tough to test NM's who are
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:53:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:48:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > This is also a more general issue: how do we deal with licenses that we
> > > > can't read, in the general case? We assume that Debian users can read
> > > > Engli
My suggestions are inline. To me, this looks like it is intended as a
free license. It may not pass the "tentacles of evil" test since it is
not precisely worded, but a statement by the copyright holder that the
free interpretation applies is sufficent to cover this issue.
On Wed, Aug 18, 20
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:26:00AM +0200, Nicolas CANIART wrote:
> Hi all !
>
> I've read with interest the thread[1] about the new CeCILL licence.
> But the debian community has not taken a clear position about it yet.
> Since I'd like to know if it is possible to package softwares under that
>
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
> licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make
> modifications under a more permisive licence than the LGPL/QPL duo.
>
> So, would a wording wher
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:37:56 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> He doesn't have that permission himself. How can he possibly give it
> to others? If he can't release just under the GPL, how can he allow
> me to?
Well, it says "any other license(s)", not "any other license(s) with the
additional claus
(forwarded by request)
--
Glenn Maynard
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:11:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You have some very strange mail headers:
>
> From: Nicolas CANIART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mail-Followup-To: ".no-spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> debian-legal@lists.d
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0200, Nicolas CANIART wrote:
> > (Yes, the clause repeats itself; I have no idea why.)
>
> At http://cecill.info/faq.en.html#clarification parapraph 2, it is said
> that this is a translation bug and it will be corrected in the "next
> version" (no date given
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
> understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
> prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
> one's peer
On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the
debian-legal list collectively,
I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a
reasonable
reac
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:17:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >>I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the
> >>debian-legal list collectively,
> >I don't
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:27:01PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > He doesn't have that permission himself. How can he possibly give it
> > to others? If he can't release just under the GPL, how can he allow
> > me to?
>
> Well, it says "any other license(s)", not "any other license(s) with the
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be
> > interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among
> > other things, flamewars on -legal). That makes DFSG
26 matches
Mail list logo
