On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:57:55PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Ah. I parsed it as (patents that make their distribution problematic)
or (other issues that make their distribution problematic).
Maybe we need more operator precedence in English..
In any case, I've brought this up to
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:27:45PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:31:32AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
...
IMVHO
I think is that Unisys' pateting position is currently
defendable in a court outside USA, as well as SCO claims about
...
defendable means
Dear Sir/ Madam,
We are a website designing and multimedia development
company from Calcutta. We are into this profession for the last 5
years. We are giving some offers below. Do have a look at them
and let us know if you would like to have any of our services.
Below are our offers:-
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence without a reciprocity
clause.
No sane company will ever grant a
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 09:39 PM, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
The subscribers of the debian-legal list have examined all three of the
proposed licenses and it seems that the consensus is that none of the
licenses are Free Software licenses, according to the Debian Free
Software
Scripsit Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have read the comments. Why are people judging the freeness
of software according to the DFSG without actually referring to the
DFSG itself? DFSG determines what is or is not free for Debian, not
someone gabbing on a mailing list,
The G in DFSG
A program covered by the GPL or BSD is indeed not free if it happens
to be encumbered by a patent that somebody is enforcing actively.
The precense of a (limited) patent grant in your license makes it
natural to assume that the program in question *is* (or is expected to
be) encumbered by such
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that Contributor to You under
this License shall
(b) You must retain, in the source code of any Derivative Work
that You distribute, all copyright, patent, or trademark
notices from the source code of the Work, excluding those
notices that only pertain to portions of the Work that have
been
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
What we are trying to prevent is a patent owner submitting a
contribution that includes the patented or patent-pending material
for the purpose of later suing those who use the larger work. The
patent itself might not even be granted yet, let alone
Marco Ghirlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Knoppix should be distributing the source from the same location that
you would get the CD, so its still compliant with the GPL.
Really I couldn't find the sources of Knoppix anywhere.
http://developer.linuxtag.net/knoppix/ looks like a good place to
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marco Ghirlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This I don't understand. Seems like I have to create an ISO with only
the sources.
no. What you can do is add written offer to provide the sources to
whoever ask
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:39:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
A clause that enables the license to a piece of IP in a piece of Free
Software to be revokable is a useage restriction, and as such, not
DSFG Free.[1] [It fails DFSG #5 and #6.]
Assuming you mean revokable under some condition (not
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
Marco Ghirlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And that I need the double of the space on the server (that in our
case is hosting us for free, in pure Linux tradition) to put also the
sources.
Hardly. Source is typically much smaller than the
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:39:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
A clause that enables the license to a piece of IP in a piece of Free
Software to be revokable is a useage restriction, and as such, not
DSFG Free.[1] [It fails DFSG #5 and #6.]
Assuming
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:57:14PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
To clarify: GPL #4 in itself isn't a useage restriction because the
GPL doesn't concern itself with useage at all, only copying,
modifying, and distributing.
What I was attempting to verbalize (rather badly) is that software
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL says if you violate this license, this license is revoked.
The proposed license says (roughly) if you sue us, this license is
revoked. How is one a use restriction and the other not?
The GPL doesn't concern itself with useage. You can use a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:53:28AM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I think we should amend DFSG 1 so that it reads as Roland's (A) (or the
semantic equivalent).
So do I, but then we'll have to kick the Bitstream Vera fonts out of
main. I'm guessing that won't be a
19 matches
Mail list logo
