* Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 00:09:34 -0500]:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
--- Debian-legal summary ---
The OPL (Open Publication License) is not DFSG free:
Oh yeah. We now have a small problem:
On 2004-03-03 05:18:57 + Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a licence in Debian that is conditional on X-Oz's clause 4
wording.
I'm not sure I follow you as in what you mean by conditional.
One such that the permissions granted by the licence are conditional
on satisfying
On 2004-03-03 05:09:34 + Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh yeah. We now have a small problem:
http://www.debian.org/license
I think this is a known bug mentioned in bugs.debian.org/192748 and I
suggest expanding that bug report with a new title. As we don't
package
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 21:04, Martin Schulze wrote:
Bradley Kuhn reminded us of the [4]GIF patent that IBM
holds until 2006, even though the Unisys patent will expire soon.
4. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
Right. And this is how I responded:
In the thread at debian-legal, we also
Hello,
I imagine that many of us are familiar with the documented origin
of the GNU General Public License (GPL)
http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
but where does the name come from?
Was general a common term in licenses then? It does seem that
general (, generally) are regularly used by
Branden Robinson wrote:
I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a
different name, maybe?). Can you please direct me to the software
projects that used it before X-Oz did? I don't mean the individual
parts of the license; I know examples where those have been
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the language is so unclear, I'm going with the most logical
interpretation I can come up with.
I think that this captures why I, at least, am a bit uncomfortable with
your analysis. I haven't looked in any detail at the license, so I've
mostly
Branden Robinson wrote:
As I said in my mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
Technologies
shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little
more formality in d-l
Lloyd Budd said on Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:28:08AM -0500,:
but where does the name come from?
Was general a common term in licenses then? It does seem that
general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman,
What about public? Were public licenses common?
A license, issued
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:34:41AM -0700, Joe Moore wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
As I said in my mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
Technologies
shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem
On Mar 3, 2004, at 05:28, Lloyd Budd wrote:
Was general a common term in licenses then? It does seem that
general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman,
may I suggest asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
Hi,
I am (among other packages...) maintaining Festival, the speech
synthesizer. There are several languages for which Festival voices exist
which are publically available, but under a somewhat restrictive
copyright (non-commercial, non-military, non-transferable, ...).
Specifically, I know of a
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend
for (mostly-)non-program files?
The GPL is good enough for pretty much anything.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' :
15 matches
Mail list logo
