> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
> >>every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
> >>version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
> >>extent
Judgment Processing Professional.
>From the beaches in Hawaii.
In business for yourself but not by yourself.
Work when and how much you want to work.
Associates earning 5,000US to 12,000US per mo.
Impressive training and support.
http://www.supervalueproduct.com/3/
Detailed information or t
Apologies for not following up to the messages on the list. I'll cut
and paste your replies into my original message. I hope I didn't put
anyone's quote in the wrong context.
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[
Package: javacc
Version: 3.2+0-1
Severity: wishlist
I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I
on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification
might be due.
The javacc (3.2+0-1 from main of sid) "LICENSE" reads:
You acknowledge that this soft
Kaare Hviid wrote:
Package: javacc
Version: 3.2+0-1
Severity: wishlist
I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I
on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification
might be due.
The javacc (3.2+0-1 from main of sid) "LICENSE" reads:
You acknow
Hello,
I am the author of a program called IPMItool[1] and I am working with
Noèl Köthe to get it packaged for Debian. It is released under the Sun
BSD license, which looks like your typical Revised BSD with the addition
of a clause concerning use of the software in nuclear facilities. The
full
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:29 +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote:
> Package: javacc
> Version: 3.2+0-1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I
> on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification
> might be due.
>
> The javacc (3.2+0-1
That occurance of "licensed" doesn't refer to the copyright license.
It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear
facilities. It's perfectly Free.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That occurance of "licensed" doesn't refer to the copyright license.
> It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear
> facilities. It's perfectly Free.
Indeed that probably explains why it was put in to begin with,
This may be a side issue, but could someone explain to me how "you
acknowledge that " can fit the DFSG no matter what is acknowledged?
It sounds like the equivalent of "if you distribute this software, you must
pet a cat", only instead of petting a cat, you have to make an
acknowledgement. Pre
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may be a side issue, but could someone explain to me how "you
> acknowledge that " can fit the DFSG no matter what is acknowledged?
> It sounds like the equivalent of "if you distribute this software, you must
> pet a cat", only instead of pettin
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may be a side issue, but could someone explain to me how "you
> acknowledge that " can fit the DFSG no matter what is acknowledged?
Trivially free examples are easy: "You acknowledge that this software
is licensed under the General Public Licens
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I know that "you must acknowledge that" doesn't mean you need to mail Sun a
> written statement bearing an acknowledgement, but I don't think that makes a
> difference. Would a license "you must acknowledge that Jesus is Lord" be
> free?
I would guess not, be
> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Consider this hypothetical: I want to use the software in a nuclear power
> > plant. My lawyers advise me not to make the acknowledgement, because doing
> > so might make it harder to later take Sun to court if I have to. I refuse
> > to acknowledge
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Or a license "you must acknowledge that any damage you might suffer as a
> > result of using this software is no greater than 99 cents"?
> That sounds like a weaker version of the warranty disclaimer in the GPL.
I don't think so. The GPL's warr
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Consider this hypothetical: I want to use the software in a nuclear power
>> > plant. My lawyers advise me not to make the acknowledgement, because doing
>> > so might make it harder to later take Sun to cour
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If not, why is
>> > "you must acknowledge > > court>" free?
>> Presumably because acknowledging the truth of something that is true
>> is no burden.
>
> If acknowledging the truth was no burden, then that clause wouldn't even be
> there. Sun put it i
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Or a license "you must acknowledge that any damage you might suffer as a
>> result of using this software is no greater than 99 cents"?
>
> That sounds like a weaker version of the warranty disclaimer in the GPL.
No, it's much stronger. The GPL
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:57:45PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added
> the GPL copyright notice to [lbrkprop.h] now.
Thanks! With this and the other commits Paul did, most of my concerns are
solved (all of those that affected the
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Your lawyers are insane.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Cite?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
>
Robert Millan asks:
> Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> and "modules" directories?
Under modules/ I put a copyright notice.
For m4/* these is still no consensus: Paul Eggert wants GPL for them, whereas
I favour a "GPL with autoconf-like exception clause"
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:17PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Robert Millan asks:
> > Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> > and "modules" directories?
>
> Under modules/ I put a copyright notice.
great!
> For m4/* these is still no consensus: Paul Eggert
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Your lawyers are insane.
>
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Cite?
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> You're considering u
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
> >> JVM to operate an unlicensed nuclear power plant, ...
> >
> > False.
> >
> > Either [a] the software is first being certified (possibly being modi
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:16:08PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:17PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Robert Millan asks:
> > > Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> > > and "modules" directories?
> >
> > Under modules/ I put a cop
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG).
No, it isn't. It doesn't say you can't do so -- just that you've
acknow
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
>>>use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
>>>of endeavor part of the DFSG).
>> No, it isn't. It
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
>>>use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
>>>of endeavor part of the DFSG).
>> No, it isn't. It
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:52:30PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The Department of Energy licenses nuclear power facilities in the
> USA, and licenses equipment and software for use there. That license
> is what this is talking about.
And it should be explicit that that is what it is talki
You're right that this could be more clearly phrased, and I think
talking to Sun about that can only be helpful. But I don't think
javacc is non-free in the meantime.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30 matches
Mail list logo
