Thomas wrote:
> Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
I just recieved word that the program appears to be a non-graphical one
and as such, the placement of the hyperlink is indeed a problem, the
burden of solving which I'd prefer to place on the copyright holder.
Conclusively, an inq
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The license require no such thing.
> What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e.
> placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page.
Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
Thomas wrote:
> The non-free archive contains hyperlinks, and the license requires
> that those hyperlinks include the image.
The license require no such thing.
What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e.
placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page.
It's a very
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own interpretation is that it can be distributed in the non-free
> archive. It fails DFSG 3 by not allowing removal of the hyperlink; but as
> long as the hyperlink is there, I don't see any problem for non-free.
The non-free archive contains hyperl
> You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
> which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo.
I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to
freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on behalf
of the license writer.
> Tha
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license.
>
> Would you please give a reference to it?
>From tex.web:
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Co
On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license.
Would you please give a reference to it?
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
tutkimusavustaja / research assistant
Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotek
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > (The canonical example here is TeX
> > which has such a restriction.)
>
> TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear
> license, but everyone still treats it as free
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-read. It says "image should be inside the hyperlink", not the other
> way around.
You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo. That's not
trademark protection, it's rather
> > > # Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an
> HTML
> > > # hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo
> image
> > > # will be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at:
> >
> > Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden wrote:
> The lic
On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> (The canonical example here is TeX
> which has such a restriction.)
TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear
license, but everyone still treats it as free software.
(This was the case at least when I last looked at it,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he
> use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the
> Wpoison logo, he should apply for it. Of course, any party that
> attempts to use laws other than copyr
I've been following the discussion, and it looks like wpoison, if
determined free, will have the dubious distinction of being the first
program in main (that I know of) with a clickwrap license that attempts
to control use. (namely, it requires every user [0] to display the wpoison
logo and link
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:50:54AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 27,30c27,34
> < # software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Also, the
> < # official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML hyperlink
> < # so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image wi
Hi!
Could you take a look at wpoison? (RFP #122929)
I guess it's DFSG compliant but just to make sure...
I've also asked the author for permission to use PNG versions
of his official GIF, do you think the modified license is okay too?
These are the changes for the new license:
27,30c27,34
< #
15 matches
Mail list logo
