Re: Rejected Package - Licence question

Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, in that sense most other software licenses cover documentation, > e.g. the GPL - that was the main point of my statement. But I see no > license that was specifically designed and worded to apply to > "documentation but not programs", as

Re: name changing clauses, again

Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...] I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision" by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say. It's rather difficult to discuss things wit

Re: name changing clauses, again

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...] > > I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision" > by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say.

gbdfed license of one file

Hi, I'm packaging gbdfed and in reviewing the license of the source files I found the following notice: * - You can use this code for any purpose and without fee, except that * you may distribute only verbatim copies of it. Please send me any * bug fixes, ports or improvements for inclusi

Re: gbdfed license of one file

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Baruch Even wrote: > I'm packaging gbdfed and in reviewing the license of the source files I > found the following notice: > > * - You can use this code for any purpose and without fee, except that > * you may distribute only verbatim copies of it. Please send me any > *

Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?

Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at > all. It speaks about "Your" (ie, the user/distributor's) patents. > > So, let's say an organization/company which owns one of Debian's > mirrors, a mirror which ca