On Thursday 02 November 2006 23:52, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If those extra disclaimers cannot be expunged/ignored by subsequent
> distributors, then you're not able to comply with the terms of GNU
> GPLv2, and as a result, you cannot distribute the work at all. [I
> should note here that v3 gets rid
Don Armstrong wrote:
> This may be what he's asking, but if so, it's the wrong question.
Just to make it clear. The questions I am interested in are:
1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under the
plain GPL in terms of what I am allowed to do?
1b) If I were to package
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 23:52, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If those extra disclaimers cannot be expunged/ignored by subsequent
> > distributors, then you're not able to comply with the terms of GNU
> > GPLv2, and as a result, you cannot distribute the w
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > This may be what he's asking, but if so, it's the wrong question.
>
> Just to make it clear. The questions I am interested in are:
>
> 1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under the
> plain GP
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > This may be what he's asking, but if so, it's the wrong question.
>
> Just to make it clear. The questions I am interested in are:
>
> 1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under
> the plain GPL
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> 1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under the
> plain GPL in terms of what I am allowed to do?
Yes.
> 1b) If I were to package this software, would the package be under the GPL?
Yes. At least some of it would b
MJ Ray wrote:
>> 2) Is the license DFSG-free?
>
> This question is nonsense, as already mentioned (software not licences -
> see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html ).
Well then, rephrase this as "Assuming that the license under discussion is
the only license applying for this softw
On Friday 03 November 2006 01:24, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Setting up wrapper terms and/or clickwraps that cannot be removed
> contravenes §6:
>
>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
>origina
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
>> are not specified by the DFSG.
>Perhaps. But how can software be considered 'free' if no
>useful source code is available?
By following the DFSG.
>Obviously there's no single definition for all
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
> >> are not specified by the DFSG.
> >Perhaps. But how can software be considered 'free' if no
> >useful source code is available?
> By following the DFSG.
The DFSG is a se
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 01:24, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Setting up wrapper terms and/or clickwraps that cannot be removed
> > contravenes §6:
>
> --
> IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS OF THIS LICENCE [sic], EDINBURGH GRANTS NO
> L
11 matches
Mail list logo
