> > Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
> > said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't
> > allow this option.
>
> I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly
> equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream li
On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:11:43 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
[...]
> > The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to
> > explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just
> > talks about "using", which is a vague term)
>
> Are you sure? Clause 3 says:
> "3) If you m
Hi Francesco,
On 29-05-15 23:07, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Second:
>> Windows XP Theme Manager is freeware. You may freely use it in any
>> software, including commercial software, provided you accept the
>> following conditions:
>> 1) The software may not be included into component collections and
Hi,
[I should have requested to keep pkg-pascal-devel@l.a.d.o in the CC]
> Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
> said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't
> allow this option.
I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly
equ
> > > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > > > > > > -not be charged seperatly.
> > >
> > > The t
Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > >
> > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > > > > -not be charged seperatly.
> > > >
> > > > But a developer d
> > Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> >
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > -use this product in a
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > -not be charged seper
> > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > -not be charged seperatly.
>
> This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the fil
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Debian legal,
Hello Paul,
thanks for taking these freeness issues seriously.
>
> I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
> two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this
[...]
> First:
[...]
My own per
Hi Debian legal,
I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this (mostly wondering
about clause 3 of the first license and clause 1 of the second). My
interpretation of this is that they are non-DFSG, but I am also aware
that
13 matches
Mail list logo
