* MJ Ray:
> Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
>> License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
>> [1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html
>
> I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as you noted) for reasons
> similar to
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?
This is how I think it *might* (as written previously, I'm unsure):
1. what is meant by entering into a separate written license agreement?
2. is it the same licence if it's the original+total donation up
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder
> > > will terminate:
> > > [...]
> > > (c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the
> > > term of this License, comm
allan1956 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way; the OSI has approved the CDDL as being complaint with thier
> guidelines, which I beleive are similar to DFSG, so inclusion of the
> FAR/DFAR clause doesn't seem to be a problem.
The failed Open Source Initiative uses a definition, not guidelines,
and se
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * MJ Ray:
> > of clauses 4 (automatic donation to upstream),
> [...] You retain your exploitation rights, you only
> grant upstream a free license. This is just a form of copyleft, only
> that the source license is granted to upstream, not the party that
> rece
Thanks for some insights between OSI and DFSG
I certianly didn't mean to imply that DFSG would accept just because OSI
did.
>From a process and end-goal perspective they appear to be different
Though from a legal perspective I respect rossen (who has left OSI) and
assume his evaluation that the
allan1956 writes:
> Thanks for some insights between OSI and DFSG
> I certianly didn't mean to imply that DFSG would accept just because OSI
> did.
> >From a process and end-goal perspective they appear to be different
>
> Though from a legal perspective I respect rossen (who has left OSI) and
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
> compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
> the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
> also fail DFSG [...]
I think the MPL is an unsett
On Thursday 06 July 2006 17:36, MJ Ray wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
> > compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
> > the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
>compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
>the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
>also fail DFSG, and I would argue that QPL has been settled as
10 matches
Mail list logo
