I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
versions will get sued in the fo
Kragen Sitaker:
> I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
> working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
> well-known license. For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
> to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
> versio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kragen Sitaker) writes:
> So simply because the copyright on a piece of software is licensed
> under the IPL does not mean that the patents in it are licensed in
> DFSG-compliant ways; it seems to me that the patents could be licensed
> (by IBM) in ways that violate section 3 of
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my reading, the DFSG does not concern itself with hypothetical
> patent licenses. No declaration from a free software author can
> guarantee that there'll never be patent problems, so if the DFSG
> were to require such guarantee Debian would suddenly
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[commenting my reasons why I think the patent clauses in IBM's license
does not cause it to fail the DFSG].
> Right.
>
> On the other hand, when an author has asked us not to distribute some
> piece of software, we've not distributed it. This is basic pol
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not meant as an argument that IPL is not DFSG-compiant, is it?
Correct: it's not that sort of argument.
--
Raul
This got bounced already a couple of times, and I thought you
might be interested as well.
Now go and tear it apart :)
Wichert.
--- Begin Message ---
And here it is. Reactions are welcome, before we apply this license
to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
Wietse
-
FYI
I'm not on debian-legal, sorry if it has been posted already :/
- Forwarded message from Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Subject: Please review: Official IBM Public License
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Postfix users)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: [EMAI
from postfix mailing list. i would like to know if this licence is dfsg ok.
andreas
--
And here it is. Reactions are welcome, before we apply this license
to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
Wietse
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT N
[Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed.]
This is the new Postfix license. Is it GPL-compatible?
--
ciao,
Marco
--- Begin Message ---
And here it is. Reactions are welcome, before we apply this license
to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
Wietse
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And here it is. Reactions are welcome, before we apply this license
> to Postfix/Secure Mailer.
> IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
> 6/14/99
Looks DFSG-ok to me.
> If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Con
> > IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
> > 6/14/99
>
> Looks DFSG-ok to me.
maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main
from non-free, after the licence has changed. it's my favorite mta :-)
thanks for your work.
andreas
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
> > > 6/14/99
> > Looks DFSG-ok to me.
> maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main
AFAIK Debian as a project does not normally make formal statements
about w
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed.]
>
> This is the new Postfix license. Is it GPL-compatible?
I don't think so.
> A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form
> under its own license agreement, provided that:
> a) it compl
(scrawling on the screen of my Palm-Pilot)
You could make it GPL compatible.
The quoted clause applies to parallel contributors and does not prevent
subsequent contributors from continuing to honor your license.
Thanks
Bruce
>Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [Please
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (scrawling on the screen of my Palm-Pilot)
>
> You could make it GPL compatible. The quoted clause applies to
> parallel contributors and does not prevent subsequent contributors
> from continuing to honor your license.
I don't see where the license makes
I'll ask IBM to clear up that language. They've been very cooperative of late.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
! I don't see where the license makes that kind of distinction.
!
! Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
! > >> [Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed.
This is potentially the new license for the IBM Secure Mailer (aka
Postfix), and might get applied to other things.
I'm not on debian-legal, but I would encourage anyone who has any
reasons this wouldn't be DFSG free to contact Weitse.
Mike.
--- Begin Message ---
And here it is. Reactions are w
18 matches
Mail list logo
