Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * MJ Ray:
> > of clauses 4 (automatic donation to upstream),
> [...] You retain your exploitation rights, you only
> grant upstream a free license. This is just a form of copyleft, only
> that the source license is granted to upstream, not the party that
> rece
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?
This is how I think it *might* (as written previously, I'm unsure):
1. what is meant by entering into a separate written license agreement?
2. is it the same licence if it's the original+total donation up
* MJ Ray:
> Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
>> License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
>> [1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html
>
> I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as
Joe Smith writes:
> "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
> >> License, version 1.0 [1]. [..
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
[1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html
I t
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
> License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
> [1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html
I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as you noted) for reasons
similar to the
Hi debian-legal,
I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
License, version 1.0 [1]. Until a few days ago Geant4 did not actually
have a license, making it technically undistributable; the new license
applies to the just-released Geant4 version 8.1 (and presumably
7 matches
Mail list logo
