Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040902 17:11]:
> > > In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> > > claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> > > ago.
> >
> > More specifically, he claims to be in discussion
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > [1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2
> >
> > (Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing
> > things they were clearly gr
Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
[...]
> On the other hand, I find this message interesting:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
>
> In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> ago
Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
[...]
> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian
> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the
> copyright holder. The HFS support, for example, is copyright Robert
> Leslie, and lic
Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
[...]
> I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
> I don't know how far back we'd have to go to find a legally distributable
> copy.
Probably February or January 2002.
cu andreas
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
> [...]
>> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian
>> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the
>> copyright holder. The HFS suppor
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:24:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The two issues mentioned in this thread influence different parts of
> > cdrtools:
> >
> > * defaults.c /*
> > * WARNING you are only allowed to change this filename if you also
>
> > This one is used and lin
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:09:31AM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> The second issue
> * If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version
> * printing code that [...]
> in cdrecord/cdrecord.c only applies to cdrecord which is completely
> copyrighted
> by JS. Therefor
Hi,
The pyMPI (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pympi/) license says the
following. I think this is non-free under the DFSG, but I would like a
confirmation. I think that the non-commercial clause by itself
violates point 6, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor",
right? But the wording see
On Aug 25, 2004, at 16:52, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You believe that there are some languages that are inherently non-free?
I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses
actually make impossible.
I saw, at one point, a book (i.e., an actual dead tree book) which
containe
On Sep 3, 2004, at 16:26, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi,
The pyMPI (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pympi/) license says the
following.
I can't find anything in there that grants rights to distribute this
software. Without that, it can't even go into non-free.
[cc'd as requested to [EMAIL PROTEC
Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
a license, then that's a fee.
Do you have a better word, taking brevity and clarity into accoun
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
> a license, then th
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
> a license, then th
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sep 3, 2004, at 16:26, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi,
The pyMPI (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pympi/) license says the
following.
I can't find anything in there that grants rights to distribute this
software. Without that, it can't even go in
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
>> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
>> precise language is used. If I have to perf
In any case, a requirement for notification is non-free. Even if it
weren't strictly required, that kind of fuzzy undefined use of
"commercial distribution" is a bit worrisome.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Do you have a better word, taking brevity and clarity into account?
> >
> > Requirement.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That's a much broader word. For example, a license which says I may
> only make modifications in French has a requirement, but that
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> >> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> >> precise
19 matches
Mail list logo
