3(d) Any direct or indirect distribution of any Bundled
Products by you shall be under the terms of a license
agreement containing terms that: (i) prohibit any
modifications to the Derivative Works or any part
thereof,
Ouch. Depending on what constitutes a
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since
there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator
and identify itself
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since
there's no danger that the code will be run through
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Description : JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM
I think that
Java Transaction API
should be enough for the short description: `from SunTM' will be clear in the
copyright file, and JTA is redundant (and not so self
On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 11:57, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Description : JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM
I'm not sure you need to place `TM' after Java or Sun, so i'm Cc-ing -legal.
pisces:~$ apt-cache
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to
linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:13:58PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
Regardless of whether it's necessary, it seems we don't do it. (Linux is
Linus' trademark.)
Shouldn't we include a file in our distribution in wich we state that Linux is
a trademark of Linus, this is a trademark of that and so on (or
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to
linking
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that
you are not familar with
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for the sake of an argument, what about
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't the original package
2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
used provides a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for the sake of an argument, what about
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't the original package
2. If the environment where your modified
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the
provenance is.
I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct?
Neither.
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for the sake of an argument, what about
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't the original package
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have
read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of
contact with
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
So if the LaTeX
people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you
get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been
a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exactly the
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:26:52PM -0400, Jay Bonci wrote:
When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is
mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific
mention I see of that is at:
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
and
16 matches
Mail list logo
