Re: EPL + GPL3 ?

2009-03-31 Thread Dominik Smatana
Hello, On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Leandro Doctors wrote: 2009/3/30  : [...] I'm the author of an application built on top of Eclipse Equinox (OSGi) platform: [...] Equinox is licensed under Eclipse Public License: [...] I was going to publish my application under GPL3, but I'm afraid

Renew Now your Yahoo Sponsored Search services

2009-03-31 Thread Search Marketing Yahoo!
Dear Advertiser, This is your official notification from Yahoo! Inc. that the service(s) listed below will be deactivated and deleted if not renewed immediately. As the Primary Contact, you must renew the service(s) listed below or it will be deactivated and deleted. Renew Now your Yahoo Spo

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

2009-03-31 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Anthony W. Youngman dijo [Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:57:32AM +0100]: > >That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original > >place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. > > In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a > derived work, because you've

Major Vendors and FSF Announce Instigation of Cloud Alliance and New Open Source License

2009-03-31 Thread Sons Oftheinternet
*PRESS RELEASE ** http://tinyurl.com/cloudleft Major Vendors and FSF Announce Instigation of Cloud Alliance and New Open Source License * CLOUD 9, THE CLOUD®, April 1 2009 (CCT): Today, major cloud vendors, in conjunction with the Free Software Foundation (FSF), announced the imminent creation of

(forw) Re: [Indlinux-group] AksharYogini font family released

2009-03-31 Thread Christian Perrier
(please CC me to replies) Hello folks, In the indlinux mailing list, an announcement was made for a new font meant to provide high-quality display of some Indic scripts (actually Devanagari, used for instance for writing Hindi, Nepali, etc.). This font's license is not one of the usual licenses

Re: (forw) Re: [Indlinux-group] AksharYogini font family released

2009-03-31 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Christian Perrier wrote: > This font's license is not one of the usual licenses we know about and > the text is written as is: ... > What is the debian-legal experts opinion on this license? I'm no expert, but there doesn't appear to be any permission to modify,