On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
* Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
* copy of this software and associated
This is the copyright I found in a program I'd like to package.
Is it acceptable for 'main' or should I ask for a better copyright?
The copyright itself in the README:
/* +---+ */
/* | Copyright 1991, YYY.
Robert Millan writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
* Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
* copy of this
Jörgen Hägg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the copyright I found in a program I'd like to package.
Is it acceptable for 'main' or should I ask for a better copyright?
Looks fine to me.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:34:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Those are both much narrower than this license, which talks about
promotion or advertising of use or modification (other dealings) of
the work. So I can't file a bug report and mention the author's name,
because that is
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
Please note that is not a consensus here.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:37:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
* Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:16:47PM +0200, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
This is the copyright I found in a program I'd like to package.
Is it acceptable for 'main' or should I ask for a better copyright?
Looks OK
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
Please note that is not a
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:48:38 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:00:17PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
This time, however, I thought that I should keep the
Mail-Followup-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
debian-legal@lists.debian.org already set in the thread...
Correct
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:16:47 +0200 Jörgen Hägg wrote:
This is the copyright I found in a program I'd like to package.
Is it acceptable for 'main' or should I ask for a better copyright?
[...]
And in COPYING:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification,
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:17, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal
1. Don't Cc me, I am on the list.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the
Brandon,
My apologies if I've come out as brash or arrogant. I'm not the type to
mince words, and I hope the level of candor that I'm trying to bring to
the conversation is at least somewhat appreciated.
The reason why this conversation has been revived is because a
non-RealNetworks volunteer
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Josh Triplett writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
objection...
No, I think the
Josh Triplett wrote:
As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an
issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to
debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want
single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational
discussion.
17 matches
Mail list logo
