Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
cdrtools uses this library, too, the license is:
The libedc_ecc sources are protected intellectual property
of Heiko Eißfeldt.
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 13:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, isn't this just a clarification of GPL 2(a)? True, it's marginally
more strict than what the GPL says (namely, the GPL does not require
pointing to the original version) but the difference
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is a fair amount more, in that it also requires me to justify why I
made that change. Notice the and why part.
Is that a substantial requirement? I did it because the Voices told me to. So?
The GPL explicitly prohibits additional restrictions,
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
defaults.c is also under the plain GPL. There is a comment block about
this:
/*
* WARNING you are only allowed to change this filename if you also
* change the documentation and add a statement that makes clear
* where the official location
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
cdrtools uses this library, too, the license is:
The libedc_ecc sources are protected intellectual property
of Heiko Eißfeldt.
The libedc_ecc sources are definitely
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is
legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free.
Well, when we see stuff like the cdrdao license, which appears to create
a dual-licensed mess along the lines of my hypothetical, I'd have
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:28:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is
legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free.
Well, when we see stuff like the cdrdao license, which appears to
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:20:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cdrecord has this:
[...]
| - The fact that cdrecord is linked against libedc_ecc does not
|make libedc_ecc licensed under GPL. Section 2 of the GPL does
|not apply in this
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 22:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
In short (as I understand it), placing software under the GPL with
additional restrictions simply doesn't work.
It does, if you dual-license it. If you don't, then in
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 17:04, Andreas Metzler wrote:
|-
| This software is under GPL with the following limitations:
|
|
| - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c
|
| See cdrecord.c for further information.
hmmm? cdrecord.c
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:09:04AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Hmm?
Given the choice of the dual licenses:
You can take my software, and use it under the GPL
or
You can take my software, and use it under something that
sort of looks like the GPL, but does't allow you to
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 01:02:11AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
[libecc/edc is non-free]
Actually, the author offered to relicense the problem code under
the GPL for
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 10:37:08PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[libecc/edc is non-free]
In the meantime, the packages that include this code need to be moved
out of main.
What is the best way to do this? Bugreport
Scripsit Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cdrecord has this:
|-
| This software is under GPL with the following limitations:
| - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c
| See cdrecord.c for further information.
That appears to
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:04:11PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
| This software is under GPL with the following limitations:
This alone reminds me of this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200205/msg00062.html
In short (as I understand it), placing software under the GPL
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
In short (as I understand it), placing software under the GPL with
additional restrictions simply doesn't work.
It does, if you dual-license it. If you don't, then in general you've
got software without a license.
--
G. Branden
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Perhaps Debian could solve this issue once and forever by paying 250
Euros to libedc_ecc's author, Heiko Eißfeldt?
No.
It's not the same to pay money to recover a proyect like Blender than
to recover a little piece of
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:21:01PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Perhaps Debian could solve this issue once and forever by paying 250
Euros to libedc_ecc's author, Heiko Eißfeldt?
No.
It's not the same to pay
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
EUR250,- is not much money and until the replacement has been written,
Debian is without distributable CD-writing software.
Paying for a licence specific to Debian is not going to help us
distribute it in main, though ...
--
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:36:00AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
EUR250,- is not much money and until the replacement has been written,
Debian is without distributable CD-writing software.
Paying for a licence specific to Debian
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:36:00AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
EUR250,- is not much money and until the replacement has been written,
Debian is without
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 01:02:11AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
Actually, the author offered to relicense the problem code under the GPL for
EUR250, which would not be specific to just Debian.
Oh, sorry, I followed the first
22 matches
Mail list logo
