Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:11:42PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability? > > It doesn't violate DFSG 9, because it's not making any claims on the > other software. The advertising clause kicks in whether you distribute > the soft

Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 14:53, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Read it as "as an additional restriction, all additional materials > mentioning ..." It's still a restriction, and a cumbersome one. > > I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability? It doesn't violate DFSG 9, becau

Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread John Galt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26 Sep 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: > >> This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] >> It does not prevent the program from being >> DFSG-free, [...] > >How does it not violate DFSG 9? >

Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 02:33:39PM +0200, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: > i think that : > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed > along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist > that all other programs distributed on the same med

Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread Samuele Giovanni Tonon
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:07:14AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] > > It does not prevent the program from being > > DFSG-free, [...] > How does it not violate DFSG 9? i think that : The li

Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread Santiago Vila
On 26 Sep 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: > > This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] > > It does not prevent the program from being > > DFSG-free, [...] > > How does it not violate DFSG 9? How it does? this software != other software

Re: what license is ?

2002-09-26 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote: > This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...] > It does not prevent the program from being > DFSG-free, [...] How does it not violate DFSG 9? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Are future versions of OpenSSL going to be less free?

2002-09-26 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 05:04, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > * In addition, Sun covenants to all licensees who provide a > * reciprocal covenant with respect to their own patents [...] ^^ > Which has the sue Sun bit in there, but also says that Sun can sue you > if you It

Re: Sun's ECC code in OpenSSL

2002-09-26 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 00:51, Joe Phillips wrote: > Apparently there are licensing issues with this donated code. OpenBSD's > Theo de Raadt feels the SUN license (yet another license!) would make > OpenSSL non-free. He has even indicated this could be reason to fork > OpenSSL. I'm having a very