On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the
>> "official" software being distributed timely and only from one source,
>> usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable
>> rammifications of their choice. I would rec
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
> > > >
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
> > the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in
> > question is requiring a name change for even *unmod
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 19:27 +0100, I wrote:
> The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
> licence[1] which includes the clause:
>
> > 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
> > of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the l
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
> > provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so
> > far a
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, th
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > >
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
> trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
> position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I expected[2]. (However, there
> is already an icewm, so I
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > > place. Is it ?
> > It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the
> > author claims. I don't think we really want to test that cl
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > > > place. Is it ?
>
> > > It's not a *registered* trademark, but it
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > >
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Say a person X writes a library libfoo. He licenses the library out
> under both the GPL and a commercial licence.
I think you mean "and a proprietary license".
> A person Y uses libfoo under the GPL. He goes and does a lot of
> improvements in the library since it is
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
>> dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
>> for open-source consumers and commercial licence is for closed-sou
On 4/29/07, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you created the bindings using ctypes or similar, where there's no
> actual linking taking place, I think it's all OK.
The specific technical mechanism used to link to libfoo doesn't matter. For
the purposes of the GPL, it matters whethe
16 matches
Mail list logo
