> >> //1. The users agree not to charge for the model owner code itself
but may
> >> //charge for additions, extensions, or support.
>
> I do not think this is not a problem in practice. If you add a
> trivial addition to the code, then you are allowed to charge for the
> code.
I think it would b
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:21:46 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote:
> Riley Baird wrote:
[...]
> > Regardless, the below clause is a non-commercial clause, which isn't
> > compatible with the GPLv2:
> >> //1. The users agree not to charge for the model owner code itself but may
> >> //charge for additi
Riley Baird wrote:
>> > //3. Users agree to obey all government restrictions governing
>> > //redistribution or export of the software.
>>
>> This is an additional restriction on top of what is allowed by GPLv2+.
>> That, unfortunately, makes it incompatible.
>
> That sounds sensible, but are yo
> > //3. Users agree to obey all government restrictions governing
> > //redistribution or export of the software.
>
> This is an additional restriction on top of what is allowed by GPLv2+.
> That, unfortunately, makes it incompatible.
That sounds sensible, but are you sure?. Red Hat includes suc
Guilherme Brondani Torri wrote:
> //2. In any product based on the software, the users agree to acknowledge
> //Michael Schroter that developed the model and software. This
> //acknowledgment shall appear in the product documentation.
This essentially boils down to a copyright notice. So I think
Hello,
I appreciate if someone could comment on the suitability for distribution
into a GPLv2+ package two files containing the copyright notices listed
below.
The first file has the this copyright notice.
=== BEGIN ===
// COPYRIGHT NOTICE(Originator: Michael
Schroter)***
6 matches
Mail list logo
