Re: Is this license permittable into debian 'main'

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote: > I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must > hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I > will buy as a violation of DFSG 5; I can't see where being forced to > provide source code

Re: Is this license permittable into debian 'main'

On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 16:23, Glenn Maynard wrote: > "Desert island" scenarios and so on. (Most of these are "you must send > changes upstream", and not "you must make them available on request", but > I don't think there's any real difference.) I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Askin

unsubscribe

Re: Is this license permittable into debian 'main'

Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial > > > developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must > > > supply one. > I thought

Re: gnuplot license

Scripsit Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is the license of gnuplot compatible with the DFSG ? Yes. See DFSG#4. And gnuplot is in Debian main. > Another point, regarding the name and the licensing : [cut blurp from the gnuplot FAQ] > What is your opinion about that ? Do you see any

Re: Is this license permittable into debian 'main'

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive > > is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so) > > Yes, it is DFSG-free. > > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial > > developer of the Softwar

Re: Is this license permittable into debian 'main'

Scripsit Trent Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive > is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so) Yes, it is DFSG-free. It is not, however, GPL compatible, due to clause 6c. > 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other > softwa

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] [I wrote the double-quoted text even though 'starner' tries to hide that] > > For example, the one who ports the program to the > >proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good > >free software available in what he sees as an exciting new > >envir

gnuplot license

""" Copyright (C) 1986 - 1993, 1998 Thomas Williams, Colin Kelley Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyrigh

Re: Is this a free license?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: >> > If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then >> > unenforceable. >> >> What? How? > > Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either, > but does hold you to its restrictions. The GPL doesn't contain any r

Re: Is this a free license?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why should I believe you instead of Dan? Do you have a counter to the > cite of Galoob v. Nintendo? Debian wants to distribute more than just source code patches (which can form derivative works under copyright, bu