On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:15:38PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Not that it would matter much; if somebody really wanted to use
http://www.debian.org/legal as a platform for a personal vendetta
against a license - and he could get d-l to agree that the license is
non-free - then it would be a
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:14:51AM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| For what it's worth, I think the NetBSD Foundation has already reached
| this conclusion, which is why they use a 2-clause form of the BSD
| license, with
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Cédric Delfosse wrote:
There is two possible solutions to solve this problem:
- your software must be rewritten to use GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL,
- or, your license must add an exception to the GPL which allows
linking with OpenSSL.
This wording is
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:07:08AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It would be OK for the Sendmail people to say if the user wants to
sue *us*, he must do it in SF
I'm not
I have reviewed the (very well-written -- kudos to Carey Evans)
copyright file in question.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Richard A Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
snip
No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with
special libgcc exception, etc.
I don't believe
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
snip
The proper terms for what you describe here are copyright does not
subsist in this work, where the verb is subsist
Hi (gcj mailinglist CCed),
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 11:12, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
snip
No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if
the original work were in the public domain
The summary is overall excellent, but I disagree with this one point.
In general, choice-of-law and you must obey the laws of
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:13:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
volumes
Are you having a spooling problem? Eighteen (and counting?) mails just
arrived in rapid succession, mostly to messages that are several days old.
If you're really churning out
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
I've overlooked? If so, please quote this.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute modified
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:01:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Hi,
The code for ipw2100 is free software. To load the driver you'll need a
firmware which is non-free and subject to an EULA (for details see
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2). Debian cannot thus
Am Sa, den 15.05.2004 schrieb Guido Trotter um 18:46:
Thanks for the clarification...
So, since there is no hardware that can be operated by this driver without
its proprietary firmware (at least from what the upstream site says[1]) I'm
raising the severity of this bug to serious...
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:14:51AM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
Note that other organisations have contributed code to NetBSD
under what's effectively a clause 1 4 license, which is
considered less onerous restrictions on third party binary
distributors because they don't
The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified
copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of and which
is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Wha? An
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified
copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of and which
is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400,
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:10:26AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
In the past, Glenn, you've similarly objected to me replying to a
message more than a few days old. I felt that those messages
contributed to the conversation, and I think Nathaniel's contribute to
the conversation --
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 10:37:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
*The Broadcom Corporation name may not be
*used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
*without the prior written permission of Broadcom Corporation.
This is an additional restriction not
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled
this license non-free: Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who
wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the
software.
Absolutely. I don't see why I
If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing
the additional code which is being incorporated into the program --
there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and
you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:07:08AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think it would be free mainly because I cannot think of any
situation where the licensee would have any grievance (grounded in a
free license, anyway) to sue the licensor over.
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The issue isn't simply replying to old messages; it's that the list
received a burst of 27 (!) messages in a row (many of which were to old
messages).
What he said.
I've taken to ignoring the long strings of From: Nathanael Nerode I
find in my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:57:01 PDT, Hans Reiser said:
Random credits are the elegant answer. Displaying only the distro name
at boot time is morally wrong.
Would be nice - the RedHat/Fedora GUI installer already supports showing the
current install status in
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This license is governed by California law
OK.
and both of us
agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San Francisco or Alameda
counties.
No we don't. This is
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.
That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
No. I didn't
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This license is governed by California law
OK.
and both of us
agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San Francisco or
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing
the additional code which is being incorporated into the program --
there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and
you're giving everyone who has a copy
Let's go for emacs and openssl. If there is no distribution of
emacs+openssl, then there is no problem. Are you asserting that this
is the case?
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:07:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes. I am asserting that I can combine OpenSSL and Emacs code to
On May 13, 2004, at 19:06, MJ Ray wrote:
Can we reasonably expect that anyone licensing us some patents in
order to use their software has such patents? If not, why don't they
declare that instead of licensing a nothing to us?
I doubt IBM knows which patents it has regarding most of the
On May 10, 2004, at 22:22, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:22:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[SNIP. Some stuff about possible problems with invariant sections
needing to be secondary, in face of topic changes]
This can be resolved by thinking about the release history of
On May 11, 2004, at 09:20, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I doubt removing the patch part of DFSG 4 would cause many problems.
Sure. TeX is not that important after all...
Ah, TeX. What fun that license is :-(
TeX may be a good reason to keep that
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This license is governed by California law
OK.
and both of us
agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
that
On May 14, 2004, at 16:26, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
In the US, no copyrights will actually expire for twenty years or more.
s/for twenty years or more//
:-(
33 matches
Mail list logo
