Re: Corel's apt frontend
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 01:12:42PM -0700, Bruce J. Perens wrote: DO NOT LGPL, that would let them make the front-end non-free. Qt exception is fine. I think it's Corel's intent to GPL the front-end anyway, but I'd prefer not to make it possible for _others_ to put non-free front-ends on APT. Branden: Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Is there a form of non-free they could get away with that wouldn't force them to pay royalties to Troll Tech, though? I don't think it's more than $2000. They can afford it :-) It is ultimately Jason's decision, though. He could decide to do neither and leave Corel in a nice big quandary. :) They are already getting an education-by-fire regarding licenses, aren't they? I don't think we have to make it any more difficult. Thanks Bruce
Re: opencontent licence DFSG free?
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Oct 12, Joey Hess wrote: The whole O'Reilly debian book is online now at http://www.ora.com/catalog/debian/chapter/ The copyright is the OpenContent license, http://www.ora.com/catalog/debian/chapter/copyright.html It looks to me on a hurried reading that the opencontent license is DFSG free so long as none of the license options are invoked. Opinions? I tend to agree; my recollection is that the OpenContent License (aka OPL) was specifically designed to be compliant with the Open Source Definition (and thus the DFSG). Furthermore, I think RMS helped them write it or revise it. What about this? Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with respect to the title. (from http://www.ora.com/catalog/debian/chapter/appf_01.html) Isn´t this an advertising clause like the BSD license had? This would be bad and make it non-free, doesn`t it? I wonder if it is enforceable, because every book has got 6 outer surfaces and its hard to get the information requested on the side which opens up... *eg* Jens --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 2048/E451C639 Jens Ritter Key fingerprint: 5F 3D 43 1E 24 1E CC 48 1E 05 93 3A A7 10 73 37
Re: opencontent licence DFSG free?
On Oct 18, Jens Ritter wrote: What about this? Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with respect to the title. (from http://www.ora.com/catalog/debian/chapter/appf_01.html) Isn´t this an advertising clause like the BSD license had? This would be bad and make it non-free, doesn`t it? I wonder if it is enforceable, because every book has got 6 outer surfaces and its hard to get the information requested on the side which opens up... *eg* I don't think it's an advertising clause in the sense of the BSD advertising clause. It's more like a reasonable disclosure clause (i.e. telling people what they're buying). I assume all outer surfaces is a publishing term for the covers and spine. (Also, I'd check to see if this clause is in the release OPL at the Open Content website. The book is licensed under ANY version of the OPL, and the latest versions are a lot less strict in terms of attribution and limiting the freedom of derived works.) Chris -- = | Chris Lawrence|Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ | | | | |Grad Student, Pol. Sci.|Join the party that opposed the CDA| | University of Mississippi | http://www.lp.org/| =
