Hi again,
Yes you are probably right. The whole license thing is rather murky.
May I ask you for some advice?
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
* have a clear no-nonsense license
* to make the library free for all open source users
* to guarantee that it stays free and
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it
seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that
particular piece of sofware.
Have you
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Surely, if I encode the Document, and it turns up in my encoding at
your computer a year later, it must be either because I gave you a
copy (in which case you get the rights) or
Hi,
[ Quoting full text because that should go to -legal; cc'ing -legal ]
Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi!
I am currently packaging latex-ucs (see #160953), being mentored and
sponsored by Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The package is
I wasn't sure about the LPPL issues; I remember some
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:08:10PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
The challenges:
In which cases should Joe be forced to give his program to his customer?
IMO none of them:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:06 am, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
the author clarified his license with regard to the Python version.
The version in question now is the PSF 2.1 license[1], which is
incompatible with GPL[2]. However, I think it's DFSG free and therefore
can be packaged. Any objections?
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.
The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to
everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that
want to use it as part of a
Scripsit JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I ask you for some advice?
Sure.
The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal
but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that
seems, to sort of, work.
We have no problem with dual-licensing schemes in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:48:28AM +1100, Richard Jones wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:06 am, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
the author clarified his license with regard to the Python version.
The version in question now is the PSF 2.1 license[1],
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not
re-packaged and then sold by some other companies.
If by free you mean available at no cost, then free software isn't
for you. Free software is about *freedom*, not a near-zero price.
One very
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
You have articulated a difference between cannot and don't want
to, but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
case.
You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
as compared to the BSD.
Yes I
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code
You say that like the possessor of the code is somehow special, but
the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code
You say that like the possessor of the code is somehow special, but
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
