New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available

2006-07-27 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Just a heads-up. http://gplv3.fsf.org/ There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the GPL v.3. (They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.) And there's a new draft of the LGPL. (I haven't looked carefully at it.) You know where to leave your c

BCFG Public License

2006-07-27 Thread John Goerzen
Hi, The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the current policy on that sort of license is. Plus, it's got some other wording -- is it OK? Do any of you have any tips on what I might say to the author

Re: DomainKeys license(s)

2006-07-27 Thread Magnus Holmgren
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:43, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to write: > On Saturday 17 June 2006 23:02, Joe Smith took the opportunity to write: > > "Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >ib yte.se... > > > > > What about the

Fwd: possible license violation (was: libssl and zlib1g)

2006-07-27 Thread Robert Millan [ackstorm]
Actualy, I'm not sure if indirect linking of GPL with "original BSD" license is a violation as well. Summary for debian-legal: - zabbix (GPL) links with libsnmp (revised BSD) - libsnmp links with libssl (original BSD) On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:32:04AM +0200, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote: