Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
>> In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner,
>> they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2.
>>
>> Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug!
>> Recipients should not
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:34:32 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>
>
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> "We would really love to be more permissive, but we cannot, 'cause
>>> that other evil guy forbid
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:46:05 +1000 Kel Modderman wrote:
>
>
>> On Thursday 08 March 2007 04:23, Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> However, the license does not meet the DFSG (it's not even close to
>>> meeting them...): has Intel been contacted and asked to pr
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Henning Makholm wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
>>> me to "acknowledge" that law? Why wou
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>
>
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
>
>
>>> # LICENSEE AGRE
George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
> --cut--
>
>> Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
>>
>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
>>UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICE
Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Goerzen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>>>
kris wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 19:06 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>
> [[snipped]]
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's not. It doesn't grant the right to be used in commercial
>>>> products,
kris wrote:
> We are releasing some software and would like to
> make sure it is compatible with debian.
>
> We have been told that this is the current license to
> use for UC produced works.
> http://www.ucop.edu/ott/permissn.html
>
> I searched the archives to no avail. I notice
> that it no lo
Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello debian-legal,
>>
>> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
>> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
>> DFSG-free. However, Kern has indi
Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Javier wrote:
>>> The last proposed licensed I sent is *not* a "new" license. It
>>> is simply this license:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html
>> ...
>>
>>> The Debia
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
If that is the case, wouldn't the simplest course of action be simply
to strip the build system from the tarball and replace it with a free
one written by the maintainer?
Oops, missed where Don mentioned this earlier in thread. Sorry!
Benjamin
signatur
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
The site seems legit, but that doesn't make spamming legal. To be
spam, however, it must be automated. It looks like a site for 'open
source' programmers, and Debian clearly qualifies as an 'open source'
project (in fact the OSD was based on the DFSG), so it may have been
14 matches
Mail list logo
