Lewis Jardine wrote:
I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library),
and 2d (...you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
event an application does not supply such function or table, the
facility still operates...) are 'further restrictions' with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I've packaged FlameRobin - wx GUI for manipulating Firebird databases.
Upstream: www.flamerobin.org
The upstream source is licensed under Initial Developer Public License
1.0. There is also an external library, which source is included in
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but
could be in non-free maybe.
It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to
the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a cost.
I have already
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt
[...]
My question is: Will FlameRobin be accepted in main?
Only ftpmasters can say for sure. I think this is a practical problem
for
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:01:53PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I determine whether a point is a standard response by this very simple
metric:
If I personally am aware of this point occurring in the context of two
or more distinct licenses, it's a standard response.
Being applicable in
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
Why would it
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a cost.
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
copyright holder to sue users. The cost is
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
copyright holder to
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent
infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is
to stop distributing software, should we do so?
I do not propose we do anything to stop
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent
infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is
to stop distributing software, should we do so?
I do not propose we do
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
But downloading a piece of software from Debian opens me up to the
possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the copyright holder, something
that did not occur before. How is that not a cost?
Why did it not exist before? Your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
Why would it not be enforceable? In
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some
remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat,
volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are
those DFSG-free requirements?
At least, these are obvious limitation on
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen
anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the
suit could claim that their local venue had jurisdiction over me, even
if this isn't actually the case.
The
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen
anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the
suit could claim that their local venue
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The difference is that if you have accepted a choice-of-venue license,
the sociopath can present his local venue with proof that it has
jurisdisction. That makes a difference, however
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
This would not be enforceable anyway, at least in sane jurisdictions.
Why would it
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you distinguish a requirement that the user abide by some
remote court's process from a requirement that the user pet a cat,
volunteer for some personally distasteful organization, etc? Are
those DFSG-free requirements?
At least, these are
I am new to this list, I arrived here by being interested in the Debian Women
Project, so please forgive me if I am jumping in where my opinion is not wanted
and if I am too long winded. I have been trying to follow the recent
conversation regarding choice of venue (aka forum selection
On Saturday 17 September 2005 13:45, MJ Ray wrote:
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt
I think MPL is doomed. Nothing to comment about it.
My question is: Will FlameRobin
Back in August, I wrote:
All responses appreciated; they confirmed my suspicions. I'll continue
to try to locate an irrevocable license or the copyright holders.
I have been unable to contact Don Kneller so far, so I'm currently
expecting to backport recent patches onto Noah's upstream version.
24 matches
Mail list logo
