Re: cxhextris licence

1999-07-30 Thread Joey Hess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Agreed, it's not DFSG-compliant as it stands. I don't think they really mean > it to be, they just worded it badly. Want to talk with them? I've fired off a letter, but all the addressed I have access to are 10 years old and bounced. If anyone wants to track this down, b

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:35:41PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released >under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the >code ? > > Yes. But only if the patc

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Ben Pfaff
Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the code ? Yes. Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ? Definitely not.

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Samuel Hocevar
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those > > two 0.6.1 versions. > > This is the most alarming section. Did the patch go into the new > proprietary version

Re: the new IglooFTP license

1999-07-30 Thread Steve Greenland
On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license, > which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the > version number. > Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those > two 0.6.1 v