Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think being forced to actively send changes (or changelogs) upstream
> is any different than having to produce source on demand; both discriminate
> against people who *can't* publically release changes, such as people under
> NDA.
The NDA is a
Scripsit Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, clause 6 says it only takes effect "when distributed", which is
> kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
> general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
> distribution at all?
It's not hard to come up
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 02:31:53AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> However, clause 6 says it only takes effect "when distributed", which is
> kind of confusing. You need to be distributing it, but not to the
> general public. Do NDAs and things like internal use count as
> distribution at all?
I'm n
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 23:23, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> > I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must
> > hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I
> > will buy as a violation of DFSG 5
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:52:27PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must
> hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I
> will buy as a violation of DFSG 5; I can't see where being forced to
> provide source code
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 16:23, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> "Desert island" scenarios and so on. (Most of these are "you must send
> changes upstream", and not "you must make them available on request", but
> I don't think there's any real difference.)
I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Askin
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial
> > > developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must
> > > supply one.
> I thought
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
> > is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
>
> Yes, it is DFSG-free.
> > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial
> > developer of the Softwar
Scripsit Trent Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
> is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
Yes, it is DFSG-free.
It is not, however, GPL compatible, due to clause 6c.
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> softwa
The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
The Q Public License Version 1.0
Copyright (C) 1999 Trolltech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute this license document.
The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share and
10 matches
Mail list logo
