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
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
-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?
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
9 matches
Mail list logo