Licence text included at end of mail.
I'll go over the licence part by part.
Preamble: Belive it or not a preamble is not legally a no-op. It establishes
intent which is sometimes
more important than the actual wording.
Definitions: There is nothing important in this section. The relevence of
WARNINGS: IANAL TINLA
What about copyright to the translation when using f2c, is it the
authors of the f2c code?
In this case, unless f2c does things like replace certain fortran constructs
with chunks of code large enough
to be copyrightable, there is no copyright on the change. AFAICT the n
Now, I recognize that I am still "in school" and haven't "taken the bar."
But
I'm no dummy. That being said, I have a lot to learn... but based on the
conversations on this list, I think I'm about as qualified as anyone else
to
point out that the term "available" is different from "distribu
Why don't we just find the creator and ask him?
The original image is named raul-0.gif, so somebody named Raul made the
image. (Was this Raul D. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED])
What makes me really fear that the image may be a very generic is one image
that looks the same except the jaggedness of t
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why don't we just find the creator and ask him?
The original image is named raul-0.gif, so somebody named Raul made the
image. (Was this Raul D. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED])
What makes me really fear
Ok. My knowledge of how Debian does things is rather limited (I don't
use Debian), so I emailed the most obvious contact. In FreeBSD committers
are allowed to touch each other's code, so I assumed that anyone here
would be able to fix the problem. :-)
Unfortuantly we here at Debian don't tr
this program use postscript program that is really short and
copyrighted by adobe.
The problem it's that if I rewrite this 3 lines they will always look
like the original
See for more information
http://groups.google.fr/group/comp.lang.postscript/browse_frm/thread/b2566622f4f18ca4/47b30098c3f
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were doing,
I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of
the library directly with your program is equivelen
[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms
of,
this License. For legal entities, "You" includes any entity
which
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
"Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
o 3.2. Modifications.
The Modifications that You create or to which You
contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
I thin
"Henri Sivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with al
Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz
[1]
and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications:
Umm, those modifications are not part of the licence, bvut part of the
licence notice. The licence ends with the line:
"Nothing herein is intended or sha
It doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. It could harm those who
have an agreement to offer support as an agent of an upstream
non-initial developer (like "Epson service centre" or whatever),
and maybe otherwise. Why should this licence be allowed to
restrict business relationships?
That is ve
"Mathias Weyland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
Some time ago I adopted the celestia package. The package contains
textures
which seem not to be DFSG free. (see bug #174456).
It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. I have two
options now
Using the words 'This source code' rather than 'the source code' implies the
statement aplies to both the source and the data, which are often though of
together by programmers. I'm pretty sure that the GPL was intended to cover
the whole thing. Therefore if you are unable to ask for clarifica
The UCB advertising clause has been rescinded by the copyright owner.
See this authorization.
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
The advertising clause is no longer required and is deleted. With all
of the usual cautions about IANAL I believe it is enough to delete
"Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL. I'm pretty sure it's unused, but
an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it.
This may be a problem if it is used, as:
Tha
"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So this license prohibits private modifications.
Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except
requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somewhat
more like the MPL. It
You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some
jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work.
WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment
by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by copying it. (After
all, if
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] It has long been
held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worde
This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
essential step in the utilization of the program.
Certainly if a program fails to do what you desire, changing it is esential
for use of the program to do as
"Michael Poole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
essential step in the utilization of the program. Under 17 USC
117(b), you need a
- Original Message -
From: "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is hard to
convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to
belive they might have violated. [...]
Never heard the expression "ignorance is not a defence"? One
would still be found guilty, but penaltie
"Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to
your
involvement in the pro
My questions are:
* does this suffice as a DFSG-free license? it seems that there's no
explicit permission to distribute (even if I suppose Larry meant to give
such a permission...)
The word use in relation to images implies distribution IMHO. For example if
I 'use' Tux in a pamplet, i am most
stament makes it quite clear that that is allowed.
s/stament/statement/
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, created by the gimp.
s/by/using/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@ 26/09/2005 13:30 : wrote Florent Bayle :
Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit :
[...]
And it's not GPL-compatible at all.
How so? The only thing that seems to be a problem to me is this line:
"Florent Bayle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To make this easy, perhaps upstream can move to the clarified artistic
licence. This seems to be about equivelent to the intent of the current
licence, and is gpl-compatible according to the FSF. If it is
Gpl-compat
However, this one forces modified works to be in the Public Domain, which
is nowhere near the terms of the original work.
Since this is derived from Artisic, it is assumed freely available means the
same as it does there, which includes public domain, or posting the source
publicly. The key is
"João Pinheiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My guess is the book covers are fair use, as they are required to allow
consumers to identify the book.
Besides, few people in their right mind would try to sue Amazon over a
scanned verseion of the cover. After al
e.
Take Linus, for example, had he published Linux under a pseudonym then that
psuedonym
may likely be better for identifying him then his real name.
It is very hard to draw the line. How does a legal name identify somebody
better than a psdeuonym?
For example I'm writting this under the
Wait: "Freely Available" *is* defined at the beginning of the license:
| "Freely Available" means that no fee is charged for the item. It
| also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it under
| the same conditions they received it.
Whoops. I missed that.
It seems that, if I wa
Developer or such Contributor as a result of
>> warranty, support, indemnity or liability terms You
>> offer.
Against which M. J. Ray makes a fairly convincing argument in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], which i have
included below for reference:
"J
"Jacobo Tarrio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From 4.g.: "For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent your executable
version of a Licensed Product does not contain your or another
Contributor?s
material Modifications or is otherwise not a material Derivative Wor
"Lionel Elie Mamane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:12:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are some murmurings on the Web (e.g.,
http://www.spatula.net/software/sex/ ,
http://packages.gentoo.org/eb
"Florent Bayle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ullrich Koethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Would the suggested changes satisfy the Debian folks? Another option would
be to place VIGRA under either the artistic license (in its current
version) and the GPL, at the disc
"Måns Rullgård" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Koegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception),
older versions were LGPL.
At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html
MySQL has put a
Or you can get explicit permission from Debian. :-)
Debian would probably require that you include a bit explaining what
Debian
really is and how to get it, in exchange for using the trademark.
No. Debian really would prefer that the logo and name never be used in a
case needing a trademark
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. Debian really would prefer that the logo and name never be used in a
case needing a trademark licence. [...]
Why do you think that? Consider th
"Niko Tyni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any condi
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think this is trying to be
a shorter licence with the same effect as
the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it
follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have
one doubt: if
"Niko Tyni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation,
since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or
distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'.
All the documentat
"Marcus Better" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. When downloading the driver from
http://www.intel.com/design/modems/support/drivers.htm
(which by the way is not the only way to do it), one needs to accept a
click-through licence agreement, which is different fr
"Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my propos
"Svante Signell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:05 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Some argue
> that *.h, at least for libraries, have no creative content, or are
> only API, and thus not copyrightable, but it can't h
"Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think you are thinking of "i.e." here. "e.g." means more or less
"for example".
Doh! Misread that. You are ri
"Oleksandr Moskalenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The License is CeCILL. Two important clauses:
Agreement: means this Licensing Agreement, and any or all of its
subsequent versions.
Any or all Software distributed under a given version of the Agreement may
"Josselin Mouette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shouldn't packages that require something outside the archive, be it
free or not, be in contrib?
No. An emulator does not require a game. It is just not particularly useful
without one.
Are you saying that a u
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
Source Code.
***
Although this may be a Free requirement -- and I believe it should be
cons
"Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
> it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
Err, because I
"Adam McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:42:23PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
I'm not one for entering flamewars, but I must ask what is freedom if not
convience?
dict is both free AND convenient!
n
It seems the only good way to handle this is to get upsteam to change fonts
or convince the font author to make the font availale under a free licence.
Considering the particluar fonts used, that is quite unlikely.
Font copyrights are a royal pain. :(
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
"Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The web page (http://www.portaudio.com/license.html) has the following
additional clauses; which should be included in Debian package to
clarify:
Plain English Interpretation of the License
The following is a plain En
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and that was a clearly DFSG-free choice.
I'm personally very happy with that choice and feel it's a perfectly
adequate license for videos.
True that does seem strange.
As a sidenote, the URL you quoted points to th
"Joey Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Academic Free License 2.1 has been discussed here before and is
IIRC non-free, how about version 1.1? License follows:
[Snip]
Grant of License. Licensor hereby grants to any person obtaining a copy of
the
Original Work (
"Frank Küster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Except for the source issue. The concrete example, as you might have
guessed, are the ANTP fonts, which are available as PostScript Type1,
TrueType and OpenType fonts.
I have heard a talk of the author, Janusz Nowac
""Claus Färber"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are two assumptions here that are wrong:
. US residents can only be sued in US courts.
. US courts can only decide on US copyright law.
Speaking of which, are there any cases in which a US court has made a
Dominik Margraf wrote:
and Wild Magic
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
Text:
Softwaree License Agreement for the Wild Magic (Version 3)
Library Version 1.0c, April 29, 2005
This Software License Agreement is a legal agreement between Geometric
Tools, Inc., a
Nor
Dominik Margraf wrote:
http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/
TEXT:
Public license
In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like with certain
differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE Technology within
commercial environments and you are obliged to acknowledge its
Wildmagic:
The license *might* be free. It is certainly gpl-incompatable.
(c) The Software may be used, edited, modified, copied, and distributed by
you for commercial products provided that such
products are not intended to wrap The Software solely for the
purposes of selling it as if it were
"Jérôme Marant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Following are are nonfree documents found in cygwin's Emacs disto besides
wha
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
The MIT License (in case there would be multiple versions, I'm =20
referring to this one: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-=20
license.html) is indeed very close to the wishes of the IBPP authors.
=20=
I thin
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
has moved the copy on X.org to which
http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
a new URL besides the failed open source initiative, please
"Dominik Margraf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license
and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license
agreement:
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3Licen
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anyone looked at Disney's "Panda3d Public License Version 2.0"?
http://www.panda3d.org/license.php
Clause 4 seems worrysome (requires sending signifigant changes to Disney).
Other parts seem redundant with copyright
"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Javier wrote:
The last proposed licensed I sent is *not* a "new" license. It
is simply this license:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html
...
The Debian Documentation License
Copyright 1997-
"Frank Küster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see
what
can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be
this
one:
1) maxd
"Heretik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi list,
I ITP Tremulous for Debian
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some
license concerns.
I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous,
tremulous-data and tremulous-ser
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will not
be enforcing any of the problematic
clauses, along with the promise to upgrade to the newer versions of CC
when possible should qualify them
as f
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many
restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say.
You should try contacting the copyright holders (AT&T, Christopher W.
Fraser, and
"Frank Gevaerts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is th
It would be useful to be able to licence the right to litigate cases of
copyright infringement. Many non-profit organisations request copyright
assignment from contributers. One of the more common reasons is because the
organisation would have trouble defending the work (i.e. litigating against
"Fred Maranhão" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I'm looking for a functional test tool for web applications to use in
my workplace. I'm interested in software that works both in gnu and
windows.
One of the canditates is canoo webtest
(http://webtest.canoo.com/webtest/manual/WebTest
"Kari Pahula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've an ITP, #366834, on a library called cxxtools (which already
created a bit of controversy on -devel). The reason I'm packaging
cxxtools is because tntnet (ITP #361010) uses it.
Both are licensed under GPLv2 or la
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:03:19 +0200 Uwe Hermann wrote:
If you choose to separate the music
from the game without using it in other software, the GNU General
Public License is likely not to provide the level of protecti
"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Yes, this is correct, but with the nuance, that I would be very happy
"Bill Allombert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Notes: (1)Insert the first year the software was made available to the
public as well as any subsequent years in which a modified version is
made available. The last two paragraphs must be in capital letters t
From: Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trademark:
The name Bacula is a registered trademark.
I assume there is an implicit trademark licence.
In this case an implicit licence is probably better than an explicit
one, solely because it is virtually impossible to word a trademark licence
to allow
"Thomas Esser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
the teTeX package contains files which use the following license:
COPYRIGHT
=
This macro package (csplain.ini, il2code.tex, csfonts.tex, hyphen.lan,
plaina4.tex) is free software; you can redis
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because on the one hand the copyright holder says that no further
restrictions (beyond the ones found in the GPL terms) can be imposed on
recipients (see GPLv2, section 6).
On the other hand he himself adds one such re
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GPL is not "completely unmodifiable", you just have limitations
on how you may modify it and still use it as a license.
The FSF has given blanket permission
"George Danchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote:
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
has been specifically re-written to clari
"John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
is that the above is
"John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
First of all, corporate winds can change. But really my point is not
that SPI should have rejected this license. My point is that SPI should
have been consulted about the indemnification so that we could get the
advi
libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/rc4.c
The package also contains files written by Pekka Pessi. These files are
distributed with the following copyright notice:
Copyright (c) 1996 Pekka Pessi. All rights reserved.
This source code is provided for unrestricted use. Users may copy or
modify this source code
"Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Section 3.3 says "You must create Your own product or service names or
trademarks for Your Licensed Code and You agree not to use the term
"DomainKeys" in or as part of a name or trademark for Your Licensed
Code.".
"Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 17 June 2006 23:02, Joe Smith took the opportunity to write:
"Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
yte.s
"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Danchev wrote:
I believe that the reason to have that in Sofia-SIP's
libsofia-sip-ua/su/strtoull.c is that it comes that way from the original
contributors like University of California and Sun Microsy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
/**
* 'Alleged RC4' Source Code picked up from the news."
* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John L. Allen)"
* Newsgroups: comp.lang.c"
* Subject: Shrink this C code for f
"Eddy Petrişor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
I was thinking on making a logo for the Debian Games Team but I need
to combine the open use logo with an icon which is distributed under a
different license.
My questions are:
1) Are any of the following l
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AIUI, the logos are considered trademarks. The "licence" strongly implies
that Debian does not claim copyright on
the open use logo, but merely trademark rights
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-inc
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And my favourite
# Yo yo, this be da socketNinja.
# Alpha-2.0 release
# Distribute and get a visit from tireIronNinja
which I don't think is free.
It lacks (at least) permission to modify and distributed modifie
"Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit "Robinson Tryon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My guess is that the lawyers who drafted the GPL knew or believed that
the courts would interpret such a "written offer" like a coupon: you
have to physically (or elect
"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a heads-up.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/
There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the
GPL v.3.
(They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.)
And there's a new dra
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online
service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
dist
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games
especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a
modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client
still rece
"Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IETF lawyer has written a proposal for a new outbound license to
third parties for IETF documents (i.e., most RFCs and I-D). We're
given one week to review it in a working group last call. Most likely
there will
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions
of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions,
if you bring suit
"Lionel Elie Mamane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
th
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
