Hello,
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:57:48 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> The only requirements for non-free are that Debian, our mirrors and CD
> distributors can distribute the software. Since it is pretty easy to
> become a Debian mirror or CD distributor and anyone can do it, that
> means there needs to b
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> There's a project which isn't free software nor is it open-source (as
> they haven't found a monetisation model which would allow them to open
> the sources), but they'd like be able to have it in non-free section.
> They've asked me to give
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:46:01PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> There's a project which isn't free software nor is it open-source (as
> they haven't found a monetisation model which would allow them to open
> the sources), but they'd like be able to have it in non-free section.
> They
Hello,
There's a project which isn't free software nor is it open-source (as
they haven't found a monetisation model which would allow them to open
the sources), but they'd like be able to have it in non-free section.
They've asked me to give them ideas on what to change in their current
EULA to m
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - You inform us that you created a changed version of the files.
>> This is only necessary if you want to distribute it to others.
>
> Phone home clause. Take your pick from DFSG 1, 6 or whatever else
> you feel it breaks most.
Sorry - I didn't even read
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> hope to be able to convince him to drop the additional restrictions
> (should he be reachable) - but before I do that I'd like to make sure
> that the additional restrictions are in fact a problem, and not only
> just an inconvenience, and which
Hi,
I just discovered that teTeX contains a LaTeX package "dinbrief" which
is licensed under the LaTeX Project Public License, v. 1.1 or later - so
it should be okay (1.3 (a?) is DFSG-free).
However, there are some additional restrictions in the readme file. I
assume that the author only wanted
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 10:45:59PM +1100, Matt Flax wrote:
> I see, the thing is that ngspice is actually reporting a BSD license on
> its web site :
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/ngspice/
>
> inside thae package however it has alot of different original packages
> ... like the original Berk
I see, the thing is that ngspice is actually reporting a BSD license on
its web site :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ngspice/
inside thae package however it has alot of different original packages
... like the original Berkley liense (which ceased to maintain
publicly in the eighties or early
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 02:42:48PM +1100, Matt Flax wrote:
> This person says that license issues stop the inclusion of this package
> with debian ... from the ng spice source ball I find the following
> licenses - many licenses as it is the combination of decades of
> different distrubutions an
Hello,
I have itp'd ngspice which MAY have legal issues stopping it from
inclusion into debian ...
This person contacted me (he is applying to become a maintainer)
http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=roktas%40omu.edu.tr
This person says that license issues stop the inclusion of this package
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:40:28PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I know what they are gettting at, the wording is so big commercial
> > unix vendors have to pay. Is there a way to say this while remaining
> > DFSG-free?
>
> No. (If there was, it w
Scripsit Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I know what they are gettting at, the wording is so big commercial
> unix vendors have to pay. Is there a way to say this while remaining
> DFSG-free?
No. (If there was, it would be a bug in the wording of the DFSG, and
such bugs are fixed informally an
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:26:33AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > (A) The C-Kermit software, in source and/or binary form, may be
> > > included WITHOUT EXPLICIT LICENSE in distributions of OPERATING
> > > SYSTEMS that have OSI (Open Sourc
> The other model used sometimes is to dual license. Provide a free
> version under the GPL and a sell a version that companies can take
> proprietary. Whether this makes sense with kermit, of course, I have no
> idea -- it depends mostly on how the large unix vendors in question are
> using the
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 07:15, Ian Beckwith wrote:
> Are there any similar projects/companies out there with the same sort
> of business model that release software with DFSG-compliant licenses?
mysql.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The basic problem is that the kermit project depends on license
> revenue (mostly, I think, from the large unix vendors) for funding.
> They want to make kermit as free as possible without jeopardising that
> revenue.
>
> Are there any similar projects/co
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:26:33AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > (A) The C-Kermit software, in source and/or binary form, may be
> > > included WITHOUT EXPLICIT LICENSE in distributions of OPERATING
> > > SYSTEMS that have OSI (Open Sourc
Scripsit Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > (A) The C-Kermit software, in source and/or binary form, may be
> > included WITHOUT EXPLICIT LICENSE in distributions of OPERATING
> > SYSTEMS that have OSI (Open Source Initiative, www.opensource.org)
> > approved licenses, even if non-Op
Hello.
I'm in the process of adopting the ckermit package (currently in
non-free). I've been talking to upstream (Frank da Cruz from the kermit
project at columbia university), and we both would like to see ckermit
in main. He is prepared to consider changes to the license.
The license was modifi
20 matches
Mail list logo
