i felt that "no restrictions on the use", plus "if you distribute
the source, please make it clear which parts are mine" was enough to
imply that "use" was meant to include "modification".
We should not accept software in debian based in speculations. When it
comes to software licenses, you
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:17:37PM +0200, Willi Mann wrote:
> I disagree. Where does the author say that you may modify it? I don't
> think the term
>
> > You can use it in your commercial projects.
>
> can be interpreted as "you are allowed to distribute modifications". It
> might be his inten
So it appears that the author is happy about modifications and
redistribution, and probably has it in his own interpretation of
freeware.
..
from the excerpt you provided, i think that text is quite clear already.
I disagree. Where does the author say that you may modify it? I don't
think t
hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:53:17PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> So it appears that the author is happy about modifications and
> redistribution, and probably has it in his own interpretation of
> freeware.
>
> Maybe he can be talked into removing the ambiguity and formalizing it in
> a clearer
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:14:06AM +0200, Willi Mann wrote:
> >* License : Custom license (looks like public domain to me)
> I think this is wrong.
> The readme file states:
> >This library is freeware and may be freely used and distributed.
> This fails DFSG, paragraph 3.
I think the rea
* License : Custom license (looks like public domain to me)
I think this is wrong.
The readme file states:
This library is freeware and may be freely used and distributed.
This fails DFSG, paragraph 3.
Willi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philippe COVAL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: newmat
Version : 1.10.0b (upstream version 10b)
Upstream Author : Robert Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.robertnz.net
* License : Custom license (looks like
7 matches
Mail list logo
