Hi legal folks!
Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free?
I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL
violation.
Quoted from author's site:
mod_ldap is distributed under the GPL, with an additional explicit
clause to allow linking against OpenSSL.
As of mo
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> Any hints
are welcome :)
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome :)
Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
highlighted.
Simon
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free?
> I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL
> violation.
Bleh. It's not clear that this use condition has any meaning - the GPL
allows distribution and nothing requ
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> highlighted.
Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is
GPL'ed - but the reason *why* it's incompati
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> what the author is trying to do is no
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is
> GPL'ed -
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > > highlighted.
> > Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section?
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any fur
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> > ^^
> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> > ^^^
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:22:18PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Yes, but that doesn't bind the author (assuming that he has the sole
> > copyrigt on the program).
>
> It does in a sense--it prevents people from using the GPL and adding
> additional restraints; at least according to this interp
It's strange to me that, in this interests of finding out how many people
are using his module, he'd add a restriction that would immediately cause
a great number of people to stop using it.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
> There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that "You may
> copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in
> combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override
> the GPL in cases of conflict".
The author c
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> > > ^^
> > > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the ri
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > > > highlighted.
>
> > > Um, but what is th
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:03:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I disagree with the suggestion that the author could be made to
> realize this merly by mailing him the text of the GPL with a few
> passages underlined but no further explanation.
No argument there.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:37:11AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > "Review the text of the GNU GPL and note the many times it makes
> > reference to "this License". The GNU GPL is a self-contained license
> > document. A copyright holder is well within his rights to distribute a
> > work under th
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 06:01 am, Branden Robinson wrote:
Branden, I think you're off-the-mark here. There is nothing to stop an
author making a statement that "You may copy distribute and modify
this
work under the terms of the GPL in combination with the following
extra
conditio
[your linewrapping is weird]
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:56:32AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> >"those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work
> >under
> >the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void."
> >
> >...because it's not the GPL anymore. It's a something-else license
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:53:14PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >
> > > > > Send him a postcard w
Hi -legal folks
John changed license in 1.2.11 and released again with a full GPL
license, removing post-card condition, (he thanks for our
plain and polite management of the issue - for -legal people,
hip hip hurrah!!! :) ).
So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently
in s
> So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently
> in sid will be updated as a consequence.
> The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also.
> Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could
> consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluc
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also.
> Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could
> consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluckily, 1.2.11 is not
> functionally the sa
22 matches
Mail list logo
