Hi
I would like to use (part of) this code in a KDE-application. The
licence-terms are in the file.
http://www.le.ac.uk/eg/spg3/lattice/Matrix3D.java
The important part is
* Sun grants you ("Licensee") a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to use,
* modify and redistribute this software in
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> Beyond that: if Adobe files in a CA court, even without this clause
> a person is still going to have to deal with that situation somehow.
> And if the action is specious, the person can simply dispute that
> the license is relevant to the action.
The diff
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
> > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
> > DFSG. The usu
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Carsten Niehaus wrote:
> The important part is
>
> * Sun grants you ("Licensee") a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to use,
> * modify and redistribute this software in source and binary code form,
> * provided that i) this copyright notice and license appear on all co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
>or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
>EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
>to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
While proprietary kernel modules are tolerated, there is no special
ex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Anyway, as you can see there is basically one problematic clause for
>> inclusion in Debian, and a few other minor issues that should probably
>> be resolved before font authors start using this license.
>
>Are you sure the naming clause is really that problematic for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What you're trying to prevent is clear, it's just not necessary to use
>a license to do this. Consider the following: Debian decides to
>distribute works containing your font. The original upstream
>disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and Debian needs to fix
>it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>here we have the most perfect example imaginable of a license being offered
>by a copyright holder with a known and public history of hostility towards
>information freedom, and people still don't acknowledge that there's a risk
>here. It's flabbergasting!
The point is n
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:18:32 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> I think DFSG#5 was written not because of this, but because of
> licenses that exclude some uses of the software, e.g. nuclear weapons
> factories, animal torture and things that people dislike.
That is DFSG#6, not #5.
--
:-( Th
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
> that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
> parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree
> that California is an improper venue
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
> > original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
> > Debian needs to fix it.
>
> Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documen
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
> > that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
> > parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documents
should no
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:04:44PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> It seems a clear test: if I can't distribute a changed version that
> can be dropped into a system without changing other software,
> it ain't free.
I'd take this just a little further, in that the user shouldn't have to
change his beha
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when
> it
> > > applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against
> > > other
> > > peop
On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
> >EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
> >to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
> While p
One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin...
On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
> > >EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
18 matches
Mail list logo
