On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 08:34:24AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> You missed the one big one, too: the apparent requirement to preferentially
> licence modifications you make to the copyright holders of the original SE
> copyright holders. Don't worry, I missed it too at first.
Well, it turns o
Op di 14-10-2003, om 07:17 schreef Branden Robinson:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 08:34:24AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > You missed the one big one, too: the apparent requirement to preferentially
> > licence modifications you make to the copyright holders of the original SE
> > copyright holders
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
> Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or similar
> material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on that CD.*
>
> * The book could not legally be sold without the CD, since the seller would
> not be fulfilling
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Let's say Alice distributes them as an InstallShield(tm) program, or
> as a shar-style archive: an installer program which installs the
> documentation and the useful program. Certainly nobody can make such
> an installer -- which is a derive
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:01, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting
> codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate
> works from them.
Like tar czf?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(Big long quote because a few days have passed:)
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:05:56AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theory that in
> > > general, "your mo
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> The intent seems to be to create a weak-copyleft-default licence that
> looks like the BSD one. I think it is GPL-incompatible for the same
> reasons as the old BSD licence (so pay attention when using it), but I
> think it may be DFSG-free.
No, it
> EU DataGrid Software License
> 1. Redistributions of this software, with or without modification, must
> reproduce the above copyright notice and the above license statement as
> well as
> this list of conditions, in the software, the user documentation and any
> other
> materials pro
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:45, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
>something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
>with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or imagining some kind
>of paradox here ...
Given:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > What license would you recommend for that?
>
> I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
> accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free. You would be
> compelled to provide source to those who r
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:01, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting
>> codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate
>> works from them.
>
> Like tar czf?
Not quite
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
>
>> Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or
>> similar material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on
>> that CD.*
>>
>> * The book could not legally be sold without the CD, since the
MJ Ray said:
> On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
>> package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
>> holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribut
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Alois Treindl wrote:
> I am afraid we have currently no time to deal with the legal details
> implied by your questions.
>
> In consequence, we find it simpler if you refrain from including Swiss
> Ephemeris at this time into a Debian distribution.
>
Oh well, I am sorry to he
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> You missed the one big one, too: the apparent requirement to preferentially
> licence modifications you make to the copyright holders of the original SE
> copyright holders.
Oops yes I did. It's all moot now anyway.
Should I close the ITP or keep i
On 2003-10-14 13:42:57 +0100 Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GFDL includes the following definition:
FDL> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing
the
FDL> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
FDL> modifications and/or translated into anot
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The publisher couldn't legally sell the book without the CD (or 2(b)
> > notice); however, anyone else could buy a copy from the publisher,
> > remove the CD, and resell it. See the "first sale" doctrine.
>
> But the reseller would be distributing a modified GPL
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:43:56AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Should I close the ITP or keep it open and make a note that this software
> cannot currently be packaged?
Change it to RFP and make a note, citing this thread. Someday upstream
might have more time to deal with licensing and the so
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alois Treindl wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally my suggestion would be to adopt the dual QPL/GPL scheme just
> > like Trolltech.
>
> Yes, except for one additional situation:
>
> We find more and more that software is developed not for d
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis said:
>> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or
>>> similar material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on
>>> that CD.*
>>>
>>> * The book c
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alois Treindl wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Personally my suggestion would be to adopt the dual QPL/GPL scheme just
>> > like Trolltech.
>>
>> Yes, except for one additional situation:
>>
>>
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 08:34 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote:
The publisher couldn't legally sell the book without the CD (or 2(b)
notice); however, anyone else could buy a copy from the publisher,
remove the CD, and resell it. See the "first sale" doctrine.
But the reseller would be distri
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 05:19:06AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:45, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> >You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
> >something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
> >with A and B is non-free. I
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:48:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di 14-10-2003, om 07:17 schreef Branden Robinson:
> > Well, it turns out to be irrelevant as the upstream copyright holders
> > seem disinclined to do anything at all about the licensing at present.
>
> "If you can help us with
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
> >something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
> >with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or imagining some kind
> >of paradox here ...
>
> Given:
>
I've just been having a stimulating discussion with the designer of the
concept for one of the games in Debian - spellcast. This was started with
the intention of trying to negotiate a licence change for spellcast, so it
can stay in main.
The issue was raised of the legal claim game designers hav
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:43:56AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Should I close the ITP or keep it open and make a note that this software
> cannot currently be packaged?
ITP -> RFP, tag it wontfix, and make sure you make it quite clear that it
can't be packaged for legal reasons, and probably m
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what does everyone think? Is there any branch of law which could give
> the person or company that thought up how to play a game a claim against a
> separate, not-otherwise-infringing implementation of such a game?
Yes, a fat wallet.
--
Måns Rul
On Mon 13 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote:
> Doug Winter wrote:
> >One license you may wish to consider is the Creative Commons Attribution
> >License:
> >
> >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
> >
> >It appears to fulfil all of your requirements, afaict, except perhaps
> >being suitable f
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 18:26, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I've just been having a stimulating discussion with the designer of the
> concept for one of the games in Debian - spellcast. This was started with
> the intention of trying to negotiate a licence change for spellcast, so it
> can stay in main.
30 matches
Mail list logo
