Re: Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0

>From the Non-Profit OSL 3.0: > 5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means the use, > distribution, or communication of the Original Work or Derivative Works > in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used > by anyone other than You, whether those works a

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

Josselin Mouette wrote: > On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 18:58 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > >>> No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely >>> useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on >>> scripts using the language. >>> >> Huh? Why can't some

Re: Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0

On 2008-03-28, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. > > --ms030303010806020208040803 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Sune Vuorela wrote: >> On 2008-03-28, Peter Sain

Re: Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0

Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2008-03-28, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. >> >> --ms020306050406060103010602 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> Peter Saint-Andre

Re: Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0

On 2008-03-28, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. > > --ms020306050406060103010602 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> It seems that the

Re: Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0

Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > It seems that the IETF Trust uses the "Non-Profit Open Software License > 3.0" to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the > IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team). > > The text of the license follows, as extracted from

Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0

It seems that the IETF Trust uses the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0" to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team). The text of the license follows, as extracted from the PDF file linked to from

Re: IETF changing their IPR policy, not DFSG compliant

Simon Josefsson wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Hi Simon, thanks for forwarding this. >> >> Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >>> Basically, this post is a For-Your-Information note, and while it >>> doesn't bring up something for discussion on this list, I do think a >>> licen

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On Friday 28 March 2008 01:04:14 am Josselin Mouette wrote: > On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 18:58 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > > No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely > > > useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on > > > scripts using the langua

GPL compatibility with other licenses

Hi, I'm working on a new package, dpuser (ITP: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472961). It is mostly GPL-2, but contains bits and pieces of various freely available software. I would like to make sure dpuser is distributable. Most licenses look DFSG-free to me, except the

Re: IETF changing their IPR policy, not DFSG compliant

Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Simon, thanks for forwarding this. > > Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Basically, this post is a For-Your-Information note, and while it >> doesn't bring up something for discussion on this list, I do think a >> license change in the IETF may be inter

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 18:58 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely > > useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on > > scripts using the language. > > Huh? Why can't someone patent langauge grammar/syntax? I s