On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
Distribution
You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
all files are included. The files in this package are
This is freeware; it is acutely
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
This is freeware; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
ask?).
I rather ask and take the ridicule, if any, than brooding over legal
implications I'm not very likely to understand. I do have severe trouble
to parse legalese and licenses, maybe I'm just a few
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
the licence then you don't have that permission. Once you realise this it
will be easy
I'm thinking about packaging the Java-based Open Card Framework
for use in accessing smart cards. It's freely available from
www.opencard.org. I'm using it with a Java-based iButton
(www.ibutton.org). The license is enclosed below, unchanged
except for formatting to fit within standard email
On 27-Mar-2002 Ben Pfaff wrote:
I'm thinking about packaging the Java-based Open Card Framework
for use in accessing smart cards. It's freely available from
www.opencard.org. I'm using it with a Java-based iButton
(www.ibutton.org). The license is enclosed below, unchanged
except for
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking about packaging the Java-based Open Card Framework
for use in accessing smart cards. It's freely available from
www.opencard.org. I'm using it with a Java-based iButton
(www.ibutton.org). The license is enclosed below, unchanged
except for
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone see a reason why it is not DFSG-free? The paragraph
that bothers me the most is the one at the end of clause 3:
Each Contributor agrees to provide condensed summaries of its
Contributions
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It may be impossible for people to make any notifications. Certain
uses may preclude it, like making nuclear bombs, running a terrorist
network, or hacking on a desert island.
The clause does not specify how
It might be worth going back to Internet Society and asking if the
qualification on derivative works is intended to be operative or
informative. Remember you are dealing with a group that uses the term
request for comments to cover anything from reports of network outages
many years ago to the
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:05:00AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
It might be worth going back to Internet Society and asking if the
qualification on derivative works is intended to be operative or
informative. Remember you are dealing with a group that uses the term
request for comments to cover
reopen 92810
thanks
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
* Bogus report: Copyright is clearly DFSG-free: This document
and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
.
From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Python 1.6 license DFSG free ?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:32:09 +0100
I'd be interested to know what this means:
7. This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
all respects
Hi!
Thanks for your help.
The font-issue will be resolved soon. And it seems to be possible
that the license will be changed after this is done. I hope
it will then be possible for Squeak to be real Free Software
In the meantime Squeak has to be part of non-free.
thanks again,
I'd be interested to know what this means:
7. This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
all respects by the law of the State of Virginia, excluding
conflict of law provisions.
If someone in Albania, say, is violating the licence, and CNRI wants
to sue them in
Since I'm no legal expert, I'd like to collect your opinions about the
Python 1.6 license (http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1012, see also the Python
1.6 License FAQ: http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html).
There's an argument whether this license is compatible with the GPL, but
that's
Scripsit Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since I'm no legal expert, I'd like to collect your opinions about the
Python 1.6 license (http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1012, see also the Python
1.6 License FAQ: http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html).
It looks completely benign and DFSG-free.
Hi!
Some days ago I asked about the Squeak License, but I have not received
any answer.
http://squeak.org/license.html
Is this License DFSG free? I've now built Debian packages
(available at ftp://ftp.ira.uka.de/pub/squeak/debian/debian-2.2/2.8/ )
and I'd like to know if it is possible
Marcus Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://squeak.org/license.html
I'm not sure we can honor the preamble:
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT LICENSE CAREFULLY BEFORE
DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE YOU ARE
AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF
I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to
go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it
pass DFSG 1?
Thanks,
Andrew Stribblehill,
Systems Programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England
8-
Copyright 1999 by Dan Farmer.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to
go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it
pass DFSG 1?
I don't think so. Also, this license does not explicitly allow
modification and redistribution
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to
go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it
pass DFSG 1?
I don't think so. Also, this license does not
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CNRI has released the 0.6 version of Grail with a new license; it
appears to be DFSG-free (or at least that appears to be their intent,
since they have no plans to develop it further).
It looks DFSG-free to me.
Chris Lawrence writes:
CNRI has released the 0.6 version of Grail with a new license...
...
If it is DFSG-free,...
Looks ok to me. Is grail actually usable?
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
