On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:07:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> MEANWHILE: The Danish communications engineer Dennis Damm realizes
> that efficient polynomial factorization can be used for an elegant
> analysis of network choke points. He quickly writes a prototype
> iplementation in AngstRom w
Scripsit Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> The w-agora license
>Copyright (c) 2000 Marc Druilhe. All rights reserved.
>
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> So that there is no way to evade the GPL by doing things that
>> happen to be individually OK, and in sum, just happen to get around
>> the license. They only way to do this is i
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >As for relevance to Debian, can one assume that the GPL absolutely
> >guarantees
> >DFSG free? (As I'm pretty sure the DFSG *does* guarantee me this
> >right).
>
> No. Patents can get in your way. We have GPL software (e.g.,
> gimp-nonfree, due to Uni
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:56 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't remove my right to sign a contract promising not to do
something, and I believe this is a commonplace and legitimate--if
annoying--practice that the GPL supports: companies can have employees
sign NDAs, preventing
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm ok with 1, 2 and 4. But 3 (and advertisement clause) I'm not
> sure about. I've searched the list but havent't found any
> information on wether advertisement clauses are ok or not. The
> latest license mentioning an advertisement c
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:15:49PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> I was thinking on packaging honeyd [1] a small daemon to simulate servers
> and create a virtual honeynet. I'm, however, not completely sure the license
> is DFSG-free.
>
[ Old 4-clause BSD license ]
>
> I'm ok with
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
> > > > here is the *non-interesting* one?
>
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:01:07PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 09:23, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
> > > the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capit
[CCs are welcome]
What about the license for w.agora?
http://www.w-agora.com/en/license.php
---
The w-agora license
Copyright (c) 2000 Marc Druilhe. All rights reserved.
Sorry for replying to myself, but the following from the FAQ:
>
> Gnuplot is freeware in the sense that you don't have to pay for
> it. However it is not freeware in the sense that you would be
> allowed to distribute a modified version of your gnuplot
> freely. Please read and ac
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 16 Dec 2002 22:08:07 -0800
>
> I'm uncertain how gnuplot got its name...anyone know?
>
http://www.gnuplot.info/faq/
1.2 How did it come about and why is it called gnuplot?
The authors of gnuplot are: Thomas Williams, Colin Kell
I was thinking on packaging honeyd [1] a small daemon to simulate servers
and create a virtual honeynet. I'm, however, not completely sure the license
is DFSG-free.
License follows:
/*
* Copyright 2002 Niels Provos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in sourc
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
> > > here is the *non-interesting* one?
>
> > Well, it's the one that mat
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:01:52PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Does section 6 guarantee that the usage right is kept, or is it somehow
> guaranteed in law, or is there another section which addresses this (I've
> looked of course, but didn't see anything that seems to do it).
Hmm. Thinking ab
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:01 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified
software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, "No
way!", but
I see the other guy's point ...
Iff the law were to allow such restrict
This came up in a local LUG ML I participate in ( http://www.sgvlug.org )
recently:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, "No way!", but
I see the other guy's point ...
Section 0, says in part:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
> > here is the *non-interesting* one?
> Well, it's the one that matters. You want to rephrase it, and yet the
> phrasing matte
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to
> tell that my original "different people" scenario was meant as a
> situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is
> something they do because it makes sense in i
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> > What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone
> > who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing,
> > even if their piece, in isolation, would not be.
>
>
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The earliest copyright date in any of the gnuplot 3.7.1 source files
> is 1986; gnuplot 1.0.3 was relased November 16/17 that year in a series
> of postings to net.sources.
Ah yes, you're right. I was confusing it with gnutar, which was named
for Joh
21 matches
Mail list logo
