Le lundi 23 mars 2009 à 17:16 +0100, Cedric Fachinetti a écrit :
> * 3.2 - In any copy of the Software or in any
> Modification you create, You must retain and
> reproduce, any and all copyright, patent, trademark,
> and attribution noti
Hello list!
I'm sponsoring the libflkt2, but I've some troubles with
the FLTK licenses [included at the end of this message].
The "FLTK License, May 2001" is included in the proposed
libfltk2, and the "FLTK License, December 2001" is
already included in Debian, in libfltk1.1.
- It seems it to f
Greg Harris wrote: [...]
> Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make
> actual progress on this subject:
>
> - What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are prevented
>from doing by the terms of the AGPL?
Use it on their website without being liable for the
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote: [...]
> - It seems it to fail the "desert island" test
This is not in itself a problem, but usually suggests it fails DFSG 1,
3, 5, 6 and/or 7 in some combination.
However, the FLTK License only *requests* contribution. It does not
require it, so I think it doesn't
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 +
MJ Ray wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote: [...]
> > - It seems it to fail the "desert island" test
>
> This is not in itself a problem, but usually suggests it fails DFSG 1,
> 3, 5, 6 and/or 7 in some combination.
>
> However, the FLTK License only *reque
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:45:41 +
MJ Ray wrote:
This is helpful. Thanks. More in-line.
> Greg Harris wrote: [...]
> > Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make
> > actual progress on this subject:
> >
> > - What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are
> >
Olive wrote:
> If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not removable
> (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default it is not).
> But It seems then that this license might in fact be incompatible with
> the LPGL.
They appear to be additional permissions, so are GPL-com
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:56:51 +
MJ Ray wrote:
> Olive wrote:
> > If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not
> > removable (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default
> > it is not). But It seems then that this license might in fact be
> > incompatible with the LP
Greg Harris writes:
> (It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
Whoa. Since when is a copyright license considered a contract?
Contracts require multipartite negotiation; I can't negotiate the
terms of a software license in most cases.
Free-software licenses especially ar
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> === FLTK License, May 2001 ===
> FLTK License
> Ammended May 4, 2001
>
> The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public
> License apply for the FLTK library:
>
> 1. Modifications to the FLTK
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Greg Harris writes:
>
> > (It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
>
> Whoa. Since when is a copyright license considered a contract?
> Contracts require multipartite negotiation; I can't negotiate the
> terms of a
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:06 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
>
> > === FLTK License, May 2001 ===
> > FLTK License
> > Ammended May 4, 2001
> >
> > The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public
> > Lic
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Greg Harris writes:
> >
> > > (It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
> >
> > Whoa. Since when is a copyright license considered a contract?
> > Contr
2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg :
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
>> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
>> > grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
>>
>> Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of unilate
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:57:11 pm Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg :
> > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
> >> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
> >> > grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
> >>
>
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:46:59 -0700
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > > Greg Harris writes:
> > >
> > > > (It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
> > >
> >
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:57:11 +0100
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg :
> > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
> >> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
> >> > grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under
> >> > contract.
Greg Harris wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Greg Harris wrote: [...]
> > > - What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are
> > > prevented from doing by the terms of the AGPL?
> >
> > Use it on their website without being liable for the cost of download
> > for code that they have not w
Greg Harris wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote: [...]
> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
> > grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
>
> Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of unilateral
> contracts. Another instance is pro
Olive wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
> > permissions. Where is that requirement?
>
> To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
> copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
> the
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:42:17 +
MJ Ray wrote:
> Olive wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the
> > > additional permissions. Where is that requirement?
> >
> > To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
> > copyright
21 matches
Mail list logo
