Here a follow-up of my correspondence with Philip Brown, the upstream
maintainer of kdrill. Phil want to distribute kdrill under a modified
Artistic licence and his main concern is about redistribution of
modified binaries. It seems to me a kind of "configuration is ok,
but I want to control any ot
On Jun 24, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 09:54:46PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> > My intense observation of GNU/Debian Linux Kernel with
> > grep -R "All advertising materials" * has shown drivers/net/bsd_comp.c,
> > drivers/net/hydra.h & include/linux/quota.h
>
> The situation w
> It is my understanding that :
>
> 1. Copying and modification of the Linux kernel was governed by the file
>commonly located at /usr/src/linux/COPYING
>
> 2. Contributors who add to or modify the Linux kernel have accepted the
>te
On Jun 25, reject wrote:
> GNU/Debian can sure bullshit it's way out of a situation when it has
> to. Debian/GNU Linux Kernel takes BSD 4.3 code and includes it in
> Debian/GNU Linux Kernel creating a derived work but distributes it
> under GPL which is in direct contradiction with the original li
On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 06:33:30PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
I was going to stay out of this thread considering that the obvious
intent of our Anonymous friend was to either cause Debian to distribute
KDE with license flaws and all (since s/he clearly does not want Debian
to simply stop existi
Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here a follow-up of my correspondence with Philip Brown, the upstream
> maintainer of kdrill. Phil want to distribute kdrill under a modified
> Artistic licence and his main concern is about redistribution of
> modified binaries. It seems to me a kind o
Are there any problems with this license (ie is it DFSG-free)?
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of co
http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
http://www.troll.no/free-license.html
So, can anyone who followed the discussion summarizes if it is free or not,
now that it is the official licence?
At first glance, I would say no, since it is not possible to modify Qt.
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
> > > 6/14/99
> > Looks DFSG-ok to me.
> maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main
AFAIK Debian as a project does not normally make formal statements
about w
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there any problems with this license (ie is it DFSG-free)?
It is essentially a reformatted BSD license. Perfectly free.
--
Henning Makholm
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 14:08:09 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
> http://www.troll.no/free-license.html
> So, can anyone who followed the discussion summarizes if it is free or not,
> now that it is the official licence?
>
> At first glance, I would
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 14:08:09 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
Now that Qt 2 is out, can someone tell me what the debian-legal-blessed
exception statement for GPL-using-Qt software is?
I convinced the author of pi-address
(http://www.in-berlin.de/Use
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
is an announcement for Qt 2.0 which is licensed under QPL. QPL is
DFSG-free in itself, though only through the deprecated patch clause.
QPL is still not compatible with GPL in the sense that it is legal
to
"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now that Qt 2 is out, can someone tell me what the debian-legal-blessed
> exception statement for GPL-using-Qt software is?
The latest iteration of the XForms exception statement I know of is:
| You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) b
I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
versions will get sued in the fo
Kragen Sitaker:
> I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
> working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
> well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
> to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
> versio
16 matches
Mail list logo
