Hi, I'd like to hear some comments about OpenDivX license that it's attached
below:
DivX Open License
=
Version 1.0
Copyright (C) 2001 Project Mayo. Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it
is not allowed.
Provided
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Davide Puricelli wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to hear some comments about OpenDivX license that it's attached
> below:
>
> DivX Open License
> =
> Version 1.0
>
> Copyright (C) 2001 Project Mayo. Everyone is permitted to copy and
> distribute
I contacted the Project Mayo guys a few weeks ago about this, telling
them that I was worried about this license which they claim (and
probably want) to be OpenSource, and which obviously isn't. They don't
seem to see the issues as real problems. A few other people are trying
to convince them as
unsubscribe
Eminem? Dr. Dre? --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com
? D-12? --> http://www.d12world.com
unsubscribe
Eminem? Dr. Dre? --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com
? D-12? --> http://www.d12world.com
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> It's not an open source license. Term #6 places limitations on distributing
> modified copies.
Erm, so does every copyright license. To be specific, it sounds like
your concern is over adherence to a standard being one of the conditions
for redistrib
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:31:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > It's not an open source license. Term #6 places limitations on distributing
> > modified copies.
>
> la CSS, then it would not be OSD-conformant. But if, reductio ad
> absurdum, th
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Davide Puricelli wrote:
> 1. You may use the Codec (and any Larger Work created by you) to
> create Encoded Content, and may use, copy, distribute, display and
> transmit that Encoded Content, provided that Encoded Content may not
> be used for direct comme
In section 5.2 of DR
"Packages which do not apply to the DFSG are placed in the non-free
section. These packages are not considered as part of the Debian
dist.."
Which is all very well and ambiguous..
What exactly are the requirements?
I have a specific case in mind, but I'd rather wait a while,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:36:46PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> As I understand it; the only real requirements in order for
> something to be included/distributed in "non-free" is:
>
> o Must be able to legally redistribute "as part of the
> distribution". Be this on CD's.. ftp's.. rsync.. whatev
10 matches
Mail list logo
