-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:05:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Debian has simply refrained from distributing some programs which had
>> code covered by the GPL yet linked to Qt at a time where distrib
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> *notice, this list
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we know for a fact that:
>
> a) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD folks ships gcc with their operating
>system,
> b) the FSF is aware that the NetBSD code that gcc links against is still
>old-style BSD,
> c) the FSF has *explicitly stated* th
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
> > is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
> > zeroth clause?
> Holy cow, your
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:58:46PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
> > I asked the upstream author and he told me that he has certainly no
> > problem with linking Courier against OpenSSL. He won't make the
> > mentioned exemption, bec
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 07:46:45AM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
> On my fifth reading of the licence I don't think the "copyright assignment"
> is actually an issue, but I did initially:
>
>3.The Mobile Mesh software is covered by the GNU General Public
> License (Version 2). If you transmit sou
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
> I'm maintainer of the Courier packages. The upstream source
> is copylefted by GPL. Parts of it link against OpenSSL.
> I saw some messages that stated these licenses are incompatible.
> However, I read in the Open-SSL FAQ:
>
Mark Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On my fifth reading of the licence I don't think the "copyright assignment"
> is actually an issue, but I did initially:
>
>3.The Mobile Mesh software is covered by the GNU General Public
> License (Version 2). If you transmit source code improvements
> >I do have a few concerns however, and hopefully you and your
> >free software associates would be able to help me reach a solution for
> >proper licensing of whatever I want to donate to the community.
[...]
> >My only concern with making any lab fonts public domain is the
> >possibility of pe
Pedro Reina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In all the three examples, we arise the same point: the license of
> >> your team work is great, but is not 100% compatible with our
> >> guidelines about free software. And I think, my friend, that we all
> >> think pretty much the same way about what
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:44:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> *must display the following acknowledgement:
> *This product includes software developed by the NetBSD
> *Foundation, Inc. and its
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
> is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
> zeroth clause?
Holy cow, your are powerfully ignorant.
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4
Hello,
I'm maintainer of the Courier packages. The upstream source
is copylefted by GPL. Parts of it link against OpenSSL.
I saw some messages that stated these licenses are incompatible.
However, I read in the Open-SSL FAQ:
On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions, yes
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is Alfr
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:03:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Has anyone actually asked RMS what his intention here was?
> > I don't know, but I can think of no other way to make sense of the
> > "unless" part. See my full reasoning in the list archives at
> > http://lists.debian.org/deb
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is Alfr
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:47:37PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Blah, hit the wrong key in lisa. You're recommending a non-free
> package (graphviz) which violates policy (2.1). Either it needs to be
> a suggestion or the package belongs in contrib.
Ah yes thanks for that. When I first built the
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
>> under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
>> limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
>
>Which part of "unle
Dear Sir,
My proposal to you will be very surprising, as we have not had any personal
contact. However, I sincerely seek yourconfidence in this transaction, which I
propose to you as a person of transparency and caliber.
Let me first start by introducing myself properly to you. My name is Alfr
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 14:44, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The mind boggles. How does one abide with (3) without breaking (4)?
The notice in (3) is a statement of fact, not an endorsement.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This interpretation does seem to have the side effect of rendering
> > NetBSD's distribution of gcc (for instance), uhm, interesting.
>
> It would seem so, but it's not easy for to f
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:05:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> >component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to
> >count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
> >appears in Debian's
Hello, Apostrophe.
(I maintain all our previous words to help understand the new readers.
Please excuse me the other readers).
I am very aware of the lack of quality fonts in the open source
community. In fact, over the past year or so I have been looking at
different options of helping the
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:07:47PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > The system-library exception expressly only appl
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > What is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to?
>
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html has an example of the clause in
> > question.
>
> The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The clause quoted there has the number 3 attached to it. Again: What
> is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? Or is there a
> zeroth clause?
Take a look at http://www.closedbsd.org/pub/COPYRIGHT for an example.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMA
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Um, sorry for being slow, but what is a "4-clause" BSD license? One
> that has positive as well as negative advertising clauses?
After ~50 MB of downloads: Yes, that's what it is. A representative
example from usr/src/lib/libc/gen/lockf.c in the NetB
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
> > under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
> > limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and o
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
> under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
> limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).
Which part of "unless that component itself accompanies the
execut
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
> >The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> >component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to
> >count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> > > component accompanies the executable". Trad
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
>component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to
>count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff
>appears in Debian's main archive. I've argued that th
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> > component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to count
> > as "accompanying" when the library as wel
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
> >libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for
FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO !
(se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma,
leggetelo
..)
Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet?
Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla
a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC no
Scripsit "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
>libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for the
>purpose of the GPL's 'system library' exception, in both spirit and
>letter, but I would hate to get bitt
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a
>GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause). So this is
>not a problem unless they try to link gcc against something that has not=20
>had the licensing clause removed, suc
FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO !
(se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma,
leggetelo
..)
Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet?
Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla
a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC no
A licensing issue (or maybe not an issue) for -legal:
1) The NetBSD source tree (that is, the sources which can be found at the
official NetBSD CVS server, and from which the NetBSD releases are
drawn) has a number of sections to it, with widely varying licenses
(though most can be classe
39 matches
Mail list logo
