Christopher Martin wrote:
I'd like to get a debian-legal opinion on a potential issue with the
kdeartwork package. debian-legal was CCed
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00235.html) on an earlier
discussion of the problem problem by Ben Burton, but didn't receive much
feedback
On Friday 15 October 2004 04:22, Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
(CCing debian-legal since they know better than I do. The problem here
is a potential conflict between GPL and BSD-with-advertising-clause; see
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=109779477208076w=2 for my
original post. The
Hi,
So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as per
July 22, 1999
In which case, could you (or someone else willing to take this
responsibility) please delete the clause from vm_random.c in CVS to
avoid future confusion?
Thanks - Ben.
On Friday 15 October 2004 12:13, Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
So the mentioned paragraph in vm_random.c should be considered struck as
per July 22, 1999
In which case, could you (or someone else willing to take this
responsibility) please delete the clause from vm_random.c in CVS to
avoid
On Friday 15 October 2004 12:54, Andrew Coles wrote:
On Friday 15 Oct 2004 11:37, Waldo Bastian wrote:
I don't think I can because the other part of the license says
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided
that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
Good idea, I added
(...)
Many thanks.
Ben.
That retraction is only valid for original BSD code, not for any changes to
it.
Ah, sorry -- don't drink derive, etc. -- this was also one of my
concerns, especially since the file does seem to have been through some
refashioning since it was pulled out of BSD.
If
any changes were made
On October 15, 2004 09:36 am, Ben Burton wrote:
If it is too difficult to case up all the contributers to vm_random.c,
might it be easier to alter the licensing on the KDE portions of the
screensaver (the GPLed parts) in the meantime?
Might it be even *easier*, to avoid all this hassle, to
Hi,
(CCing debian-legal since they know better than I do. The problem here
is a potential conflict between GPL and BSD-with-advertising-clause; see
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-develm=109779477208076w=2 for my
original post. The question now is whether the advertising clause can
be assumed
9 matches
Mail list logo
