Hello,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:22:05AM +0900, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> 2. Apple Public Source License
>A number of drivers are adapted from Darwin and were released under
>the Apple Public Source License (APSL). More specifically, version
>1.2 applies, which to my k
ll be moved to a separate package in non-free if necessary.
2. Apple Public Source License
A number of drivers are adapted from Darwin and were released under
the Apple Public Source License (APSL). More specifically, version
1.2 applies, which to my knowledge was certified as free, but
> Scripsit Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > I think this is non-free. It means that people without net access
> > > cannot receive the software on disks from a friend and later give
> > > the friend back a bugfixed version.
>
> > Does it say `imme
Scripsit Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think this is non-free. It means that people without net access
> > cannot receive the software on disks from a friend and later give
> > the friend back a bugfixed version.
> Does it say `immediately' or `ele
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> I think this is non-free. It means that people without net access
> cannot receive the software on disks from a friend and later give
> the friend back a bugfixed version.
Does it say `immediately' or `electronically' ?
Wichert.
--
_
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The requirement that all modifications must be made publicly available
> is a bit annoying. If I give a modification to a friend, I am
> required to publish the modification to the world for the next 12
> months. It's probably ok, although I'm willing
> Hello,
> Is this license DFSG-free?
> I searched the archiv but only found the same question from
> January 2001 with an answer
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200101/msg9.html)
> and a thread "xodometer licensing" where it is discussed but didn't
> see the answer.:
Hello,
Is this license DFSG-free?
I searched the archiv but only found the same question from
January 2001 with an answer
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200101/msg9.html)
and a thread "xodometer licensing" where it is discussed but didn't
see the answer.:(
Maybe there
Jens Ritter writes:
> But what strikes me more is that it allows copying, distribution, etc,
> "solely for Your internal research and development," (2.1).
> And they fail to define it. What do You think?
They have merely chosen a particulary verbose and awkward way to say that
you don't have comp
"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seen on /. :
> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
>
> :Features Yet Another License, the Apple Public Source License
>
> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl.html
As some of you already noted it
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I don't think so: it would still collide with the "no discrimination
> > against fields of endaveour" part of DFSG.
> Filing lawsuits to disrupt or otherwise harm free software is a field of
> endeavor?
The clause does not restrict iteself to cases w
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> [the licence terminates]
> >(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time
> >during the term of this License, commence an action for patent
> >infringement against Apple.
>
> and co
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes
[the licence terminates]
>(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time
>during the term of this License, commence an action for patent
>infringement against Apple.
and comments
> This last clause would be o
J.H.M. Dassen writes:
> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl.html
This postcardware clause is non-free:
(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your
Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the
required information found at
"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl.html
Apple is claiming that this is an Open Source license. However, it is
not:
1. It has a termination clause similar to the IBM Secure Mailer
license. (I'm not sure that this is actually an Open
Seen on /. :
:Several people followed up the today's earlier apple Open Source article by
:pointing us to Apple's Official Website on Open Source.
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
:Features Yet Another License, the Apple Public Source License
http://www.publicsource
16 matches
Mail list logo
