However now that I *have* done what I should have done two years ago
and familiarized myself with the license, I think that there is a
significant problem with the ncurses license as it stands---in that it
does not guarantee anyone the right to distribute modified versions.
Without
Brian White wrote:
I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
this requirement about non-modifiable redistributable code not being
suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who
I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
this requirement about non-modifiable redistributable code not being
suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might like
to keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should
relax this requirement about non-modifiable redistributable code not
being suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it
helps any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
this requirement about non-modifiable redistributable code not being
suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
cause other than sticking a
From: Tomislav Vujec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, do we realy distribute modified versions?
We distribute modified binary files. I've asked for an explicit permission
in the ncurses license that is something like paragraph 1 in our free
software guidelines, and Eric seems to be agreeable with that.
I agree with you on this. I personally believe that Debian should relax
this requirement about non-modifiable redistributable code not being
suitable for the primary distribution. I've never seen how it helps any
cause other than sticking a finger in the eye of those who might like
to
From: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That depends on how you look at it.
If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
package then this is true.
What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
this already. We also have some cases of author
That depends on how you look at it.
If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
package then this is true.
What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
this already. We also have some cases of author rudely dropped dead
without first
From: Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But your promise in not the point. The author wants this promise from
everybody. It's the best way to be assured that improvements get
distributed to everyone and not just a select group.
Well, it's fine for the author to _require_ that modifications in
Well, it's fine for the author to _require_ that modifications in the
program be returned to the author. It's just not acceptable for the
author to not allow modifications to be distributed.
I don't think we should accept licenses that require modifications to be
returned
to the author, or
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have one case of
this already. We also have some cases of author rudely dropped dead
without first changing the copyright.
This is a problem, I admit. What does the law say about copyrighted works
Regarding the assignment of copyright, I took that out of the draft
document. I think that every good license should include the provision
that modifications must have the same license as the original software,
not a more restrictive license, applied to them. The GPL includes something
like this,
Regarding the assignment of copyright, I took that out of the draft
document.
Yay! I knew you were a good guy! :-)
Cheers,
- Jim
pgptBXGtMKzg2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
14 matches
Mail list logo
