(please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been
raised; I searched the archives but found nothing)
Any thoughts on this license?
Is it DFSG?
Is it compatable with the GPL?
I suspect it is OK, but want to confirm it here.
Thanks.
The Ada Community
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been
raised; I searched the archives but found nothing)
Any thoughts on this license?
Is it DFSG?
Yes, I think so.
Is it compatable with the GPL?
Maybe not. Section 7 says
7
Or, I accept rather that sometimes a naming restriction is compatible,
and sometimes its not.
If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00454.html:
I would then include the entire OpenSSL license in the file
COPYING.OpenSSL in the hpoj package. Mark, please forward the LICENSE
file distributed
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:33:49PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
I believe that the copyright statement is not a part of the
license. The copyright statement is merely informational text, in
countries that are Berne convention
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:49:14PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the
GPL would be enough to make it compatible.
I'm curious. This license seems to have other restrictions over the
GPL.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of
the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications
... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license,
can include shipping and
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of
the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications
... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a
renaming rule you can't change your mind
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other
modifications derived from the Public Domain or from
the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way
shall still be considered the Standard Version.
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Selling the library is not forbidden.
Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library
in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice
in each changed file stating how and when you changed
that file,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable
copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more
than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support.
This is Debian's interpretation
At 01.14 +0200 2002-07-29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Some document formats include programmatic fonts in the document.
This is indeed the custom for PS and PDF, yes. Furthermore I'm afraid this
is how the font would normally be used.
I think here the question is whether the combination is
LOJADOTELEMOVEL.COM 31 de Julho 2002
http://www.lojadotelemovel.com
][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][ BOAS FÉRIAS ][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][
--PROTEJA O SEU TELEMÓVEL
Na praia ou no campo, este verão proteja o seu telemóvel das areias da praia ,
do pó e das quedas. Para uma melhor
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem with GPL'ing is that anyone who recieves a PS file using a
GPL'ed font could then claim that the PS file in its entirety must be
GPL'ed and thus request to get the (.tex or similar) sources for the PS
file, since these would be the
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01.14 +0200 2002-07-29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It would be better to give an explicit permission to use the font
freely in documents. The case is so special that it is not advisable
to rely on analogies with software.
You mean I could say
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable
copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more
than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want
18 matches
Mail list logo
