Hi guys,
> Has anyone had a response from Squiz to to this thread yet?
I've just been prodded in the direction of this email -- and I've
just subscribed to debian-legal as well, just in case.
I don't have the full history, so if someone can send me a set of
questions, I'll be happy to answ
On 2/19/07, Victor Troska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Putting the technicalities of the legal notice aside, has anyone actually
tried to use the thing? I had extraordinary amounts of trouble just to get
it installed when I was looking for a simple CMS for a website I've since
built in Joomla. Havi
Putting the technicalities of the legal notice aside, has anyone actually tried
to use the thing? I had extraordinary amounts of trouble just to get it
installed when I was looking for a simple CMS for a website I've since built in
Joomla. Having to edit code all over the show just to get it to
This has started a long thread on the Linux Australia mailing list
linux-aus - see http://lists.linux.org.au for archives. Please discuss
there as Avi Miller (a Squiz employee) is on the list and arguing to
the MD to release it under the GPL.
andrew
On 2/8/06, Avi Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And they say they support "open source". Just looking at the fact that
> they require notification of modification is non-free, then the poorly
> written clauses, etc.
>
> Software under this license and the 'open source' banner will now be
> implemented by businesses an
Totally non-free. The notice requirement is enough.
There are other requirements which are dangerously insane too, such as the
requirement to assign copyright and patent rights in derivative works to
them. (!) In the US, this means that it requires you to mail a paper
document to them, which
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:47:39 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> 1. Right of use
> 1.1 Subject to Clause 2 and the legal rights of any third party, You
> are granted a non-exclusive right to install, view, copy, modify,
> alter and add to the Software (in source or object code form) in any
> way. Howev
And they say they support "open source". Just looking at the fact that
they require notification of modification is non-free, then the poorly
written clauses, etc.
Software under this license and the 'open source' banner will now be
implemented by businesses and even the Australian government, whe
This is one of the most non-free and poorly written licenses I've seen
pass the list in a long time.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:47:39AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> (a) You must not introduce any virus, worm, trojan horse or malicious
> code into the Software;
Free Software must allow trans
Hi,
What do you all think of this license? I think this license may be
non-Free. The main part which I don't like is the 'Notify' definition.
This license is being used by an 'open-source' product now used by the
Australian Government (MySource CMS, available at
http://matrix.squiz.net).
Andrew
10 matches
Mail list logo
