(please CC me on replies)
Hi,
I came across the Molspin package [1], which has a standard BSD 3-clause
license plus this following fourth clause[2,3]:
|4. Every use of the source code or binary form of the software should
|acknowledge the following publication:
|
| MolSpin - Flexible and
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the
sole copyright holder of BerkelyDB. So unless they had copyright
assignments
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:29:36PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
From my understanding, the other copyright holders' opinion doesn't
really matter – even
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the
build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a
shakedown for proprietary users of Berkeley DB. GPLv2-licensed users
are collateral damage.
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 08:31:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
After thinking about this some more, I guess their fear might be that
people modify and redistribute their ELPA library as part of a bigger
GPL project. As the LGPL-GPL relicensing seems to be a one-way street,
they might
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:13:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
- In point 2., clause b) - stating that that you may redistribute
under the terms of the plain GNU GPL - shall NOT apply. In other
words, if you redistribute, you MUST keep the additional permissions
of the LGPL v3
(Please CC me on replies, as I am not subscribed currently).
The development version (not in testing/unstable for now) of cp2k, which
is under the GPLv2+ itself has just added support for the ELPA library:
http://cp2k.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cp2k?revision=12491view=revision
ELPA's homepage
Hi,
thanks for your answer.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:13:10 +0100 Michael Banck wrote:
The development version (not in testing/unstable for now) of cp2k, which
is under the GPLv2+ itself has just added support for the ELPA library
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 05:37:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:23:43 +0100 Michael Banck wrote:
In that case, I will bring it up with the CP2K maintainers. They do not
distribute binaries though, only a source repository and sometimes
release tarballs
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I think I really should have sent this originally to -legal... feel
free to send it back over there if you think it's more
appropriate.[1]]
M-F-T (hopefully correctly) set.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
I would
/2001/debian-legal-200107/msg00035.html
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 06:41:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Could somebody please review the license again and state whether it is
DFSG-free or not?
Hmm, please also notice that I'm interested in packaging Torque[1], a
fork of OpenPBS with modifications by supercluster.org, so I'd
, and information.
Blech, as we all know.
Blech, as in: Yuck, but still DFSG conforming?
Thanks for the input.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Hi,
FYI, the Heise-Newsticker got a story[0] about this as well this morning
with a statement from Thomson:
--8--
Statement from Thomson Multimedia, mp3 Licensing:
In a posting appearing Tuesday August 27, 2002 on the Web site
'slashdot.org', an individual cited a change in the mp3 license fee
Hello again,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:01:20PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:02:02PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
This is part of my distribution agreement with the
university - I am not allowed to distribute the software to
companies without a fee (which mainly
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think so. Does the author just provide one big, fat,
executable? It sounds like there are other parts with an assumed
directory structure. That would prevent you, for example, from
putting documentation in a separate
Thanks for your answers!
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 09:07:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
However, you said that the author is resposive. At a minimum, I think
that the paragraph
The tool set can be distributed as part of
Hello,
I'd like to package CACTVS, a framework of chemical applications. (so far
mostly a structure editor, but there aren't many decent of those around
for Linux...)
The license is clearly not DFSG-compliant, however, I'd like to know if
I could even upload this to non-free:
--- snip ---
This
18 matches
Mail list logo
