On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:15:38PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Not that it would matter much; if somebody really wanted to use
> http://www.debian.org/legal as a platform for a personal vendetta
> against a license - and he could get d-l to agree that the license is
> non-free - then it would b
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:14:51AM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> | For what it's worth, I think the NetBSD Foundation has already reached
> | this conclusion, which is why they use a 2-clause form of the BSD
> | license, with
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Cédric Delfosse wrote:
> There is two possible solutions to solve this problem:
> - your software must be rewritten to use GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL,
> - or, your license must add an exception to the GPL which allows
> linking with OpenSSL.
This wording
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:07:08AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > It would be OK for the Sendmail people to say "if the user wants to
> > > sue *us*, he must do it in SF"
>
>
Cher(e) internaute,
Nous avons bien reçu le courrier électronique que vous nous avez envoyé.
Nous recevons actuellement beaucoup de demandes par mail, aussi nous vous
remercions de votre patience si la réponse à votre question tardait à vous
parvenir.
Vous allez recevoir bientôt un second accusé
I have reviewed the (very well-written -- kudos to Carey Evans)
copyright file in question.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
> Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Sigh... did you not notice from which pool
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >> No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
> >> GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with
> >> special libgcc exception, etc.
> >
> > I don't be
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
>
>
> > The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not
> > subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alt
Hi (gcj mailinglist CCed),
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 11:12, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > >> No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
> > >> GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL,
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if
> the original work were in the public domain
The summary is overall excellent, but I disagree with this one point.
In general, choice-of-law and "you must obey the laws of Kaz
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:13:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> volumes
>
> Are you having a spooling problem? Eighteen (and counting?) mails just
> arrived in rapid succession, mostly to messages that are several days old.
>
> If you're really chu
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
>> > I've overlooked? If so, please quote this.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute mod
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:01:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Hi,
> >> The code for ipw2100 is free software. To load the driver you'll need a
> >> firmware which is non-free and subject to an EULA (for details see
> >> http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2). Debian cannot thus
>
Am Sa, den 15.05.2004 schrieb Guido Trotter um 18:46:
> Thanks for the clarification...
>
> So, since there is no hardware that can be operated by this driver without
> its proprietary firmware (at least from what the upstream site says[1]) I'm
> raising the severity of this bug to "serious"...
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:14:51AM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
>>Note that other organisations have contributed code to NetBSD
>>under what's effectively a clause 1 & 4 license, which is
>>considered less onerous restrictions on third party binary
>>distributors because the
> > The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified
> > copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of "and" which
> > is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Wha?
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified
>> > copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of "and" which
>> > is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:10:26AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> In the past, Glenn, you've similarly objected to me replying to a
> message more than a few days old. I felt that those messages
> contributed to the conversation, and I think Nathaniel's contribute to
> the conversation -- ce
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 10:37:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > *The "Broadcom Corporation" name may not be
> > *used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> > *without the prior written permission of Broadcom Corporation.
> >
> > This is an additional restric
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled
> this license non-free: "Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who
> wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the
> software."
Absolutely. I don't see why
> > If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing
> > the additional code which is being incorporated into the program --
> > there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and
> > you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:07:08AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think it would be free mainly because I cannot think of any
> > situation where the licensee would have any grievance (grounded in a
> > free license, anyway) to sue the licensor
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The issue isn't simply replying to old messages; it's that the list
> received a burst of 27 (!) messages in a row (many of which were to old
> messages).
What he said.
I've taken to ignoring the long strings of "From: Nathanael Nerode" I
find in my d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:57:01 PDT, Hans Reiser said:
Random credits are the elegant answer. Displaying only the distro name
at boot time is morally wrong.
Would be nice - the RedHat/Fedora GUI installer already supports showing the
current install status in o
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "This license is governed by California law"
> OK.
>
> "and both of us
> agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
> that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San Francisco or Alameda
> counties."
> No we don't. T
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
> > "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation."
> >
> > That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
>
> N
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "This license is governed by California law"
> > OK.
> > "and both of us
> > agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this Software,
> > that jurisdiction and venue is proper in San
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing
>> > the additional code which is being incorporated into the program --
>> > there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and
>> > you're giving everyone who
> > Let's go for emacs and openssl. If there is no distribution of
> > emacs+openssl, then there is no problem. Are you asserting that this
> > is the case?
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:07:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Yes. I am asserting that I can combine OpenSSL and Emacs code to
>
On May 13, 2004, at 19:06, MJ Ray wrote:
Can we reasonably expect that anyone licensing us some patents in
order to use their software has such patents? If not, why don't they
declare that instead of licensing a nothing to us?
I doubt IBM knows which patents it has regarding most of the free
On May 10, 2004, at 22:22, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:22:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[SNIP. Some stuff about possible problems with invariant sections
needing to be secondary, in face of topic changes]
This can be resolved by thinking about the release history of
On May 11, 2004, at 09:20, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I doubt removing the patch part of DFSG 4 would cause many problems.
Sure. TeX is not that important after all...
Ah, TeX. What fun that license is :-(
TeX may be a good reason to keep that
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "This license is governed by California law"
>
> > > OK.
>
> > > "and both of us
> > > agree that for any dispute arising out of or relating to this
On May 14, 2004, at 16:26, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
In the US, no copyrights will actually expire for twenty years or more.
s/for twenty years or more//
:-(
34 matches
Mail list logo