[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> of the old wording in the policy manual, which mentioned "onerous
> conditions" (of which this is one, IMHO) as a reason for things going
Nope. I really don't think it is.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Briscoe-Smith) wrote on 24.04.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> The gist is this: most of the "obnoxious" advertising clauses in
> BSD-ish software specify a different sentence which must be mentioned
> on advertising mentioning the software. This means that if I build
> a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (b) The authors of ncftp writing a workalike for readline. [This
> course of action has also been taken by a few authors of other
> pieces of software.]
I believe I've said this before, but ...
A workalike (or, rather, `linkalike') for `readline' has be
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> Hmm..
>
> I don't see any version of ncftp 2 in frozen?
>
> Someone said it was GPL (and hence free) now? And someone else said it had
> gone into hamm/main, but I don't seem to have it in my packages file...
ncftp_2.4.3-1.deb is in main/net. There was
--On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 9:34 pm + "Rev. Joseph Carter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 10:21:04PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
>> I don't see any version of ncftp 2 in frozen?
>>
>> Someone said it was GPL (and hence free) now? And someone else said it
had
>> gone into hamm/
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 10:21:04PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> I don't see any version of ncftp 2 in frozen?
>
> Someone said it was GPL (and hence free) now? And someone else said it had
> gone into hamm/main, but I don't seem to have it in my packages file...
It's there. In main, I believe sec
Hmm..
I don't see any version of ncftp 2 in frozen?
Someone said it was GPL (and hence free) now? And someone else said it had
gone into hamm/main, but I don't seem to have it in my packages file...
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka
I (foolishly) wrote:
> Urk! It's the Obnoxious BSD Advertising Clause, back to haunt us.
> Including the OBSDAC would make Moxa non-free.
James wrote:
> Say _what_? I do *not* think so. (Hint: look at glibc's copyright file)
And, of course he was right. Sorry to post without thinking first.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Igor Grobman writes:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> igor wrote:
> >a new license yet, but here it is:
>> >
>> >/* =
>> > * Copyright (c) 1998 Moxa Technologies Corp, LTD. All rights reserved.
>>
On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 04:27:20AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > 3 was yanked from hamm (hardly usable) and 2 was put in main. I think it
> > uses an epoch, which should make it install even though versionwise it's
> > older.
>
> Hm.. I'm the ncftp maintainer and the version in hamm/non-free
"Rev. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 02:22:39PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > >> On the contrary. This is an excellent point you made. ncftp
> >
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 02:22:39PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> >>On the contrary. This is an excellent point you made. ncftp
> >> is now under GPL!! Yay! libreadline not being under LGPL worked!
> >> Hurrah!
> >
> > Um, 2.x is GPL. 3.x is not, afaik.
>
> Certainly the version of 3 in hamm
--On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 12:25 am + "Rev. Joseph Carter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 05:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Rev> It does that, but sometimes that is not always a good thing.
>> Rev> Take for example the libreadline library. It is GPL, not LGPL.
>>
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 05:04:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rev> It does that, but sometimes that is not always a good thing.
> Rev> Take for example the libreadline library. It is GPL, not LGPL.
> Rev> In order to link this library which is somewhat standard (IMO at
> Rev> least) your sof
Hi,
>>"Rev" == Rev Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rev> It does that, but sometimes that is not always a good thing.
Rev> Take for example the libreadline library. It is GPL, not LGPL.
Rev> In order to link this library which is somewhat standard (IMO at
Rev> least) your software must b
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > be GPL. An example of this is ncftp which was using it--that's a nono,
> > even though it is a simple shared library. In this instance, the GPL
> > actually hurt ncftp.
> ...
> > This is a limitation on t
Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> be GPL. An example of this is ncftp which was using it--that's a nono,
> even though it is a simple shared library. In this instance, the GPL
> actually hurt ncftp.
...
> This is a limitation on the GPL I think, ...
It's a limitation of ncftp.
The
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:06:33AM -0400, James A.Treacy wrote:
> > If you ask RMS, MANY licenses are not "free enough", including BSD,
> > Artistic, and others. DFSG is not free enough for him, yet you can do
> > more with one of the other licenses. Interesting how that works out.
> >
> > RMS i
Igor Grobman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am I correct that this clause doesn't make software really non-free
> (DFSG definition)?
Yes. To quote from the DFSG itself:
| 10. Example Licenses
|The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses
|that we consider
> If you ask RMS, MANY licenses are not "free enough", including BSD,
> Artistic, and others. DFSG is not free enough for him, yet you can do
> more with one of the other licenses. Interesting how that works out.
>
> RMS is pushing an ideal more than anything.
>
Please don't get into an argument
> >>Anyway, could you explain to me how this advertising clause is so
> harmful?
> >
> > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.
>
> Ok, this helps. I am still at a loss why we mention BSD as one of the "free"
> licenses in DFSG, and have no mention of this problem there. I'll try to
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> igor wrote:
>a new license yet, but here it is:
> >
> >/* =
> > * Copyright (c) 1998 Moxa Technologies Corp, LTD. All rights reserved.
> [...]
> > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning feature
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> igor wrote:
>
>I intend to package up Moxa radius, a fully-featured radius server package.
>It has some of the features that are not available in any of freely available
>radius's that debian contains, such as proxy support. I found it accidentally
>on the net, a
Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Urk! It's the Obnoxious BSD Advertising Clause, back to haunt us.
>
> Including the OBSDAC would make Moxa non-free.
Say _what_? I do *not* think so. (Hint: look at glibc's copyright
file)
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
>>Anyway, could you explain to me how this advertising clause is so
harmful?
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.
Ok, this helps. I am still at a loss why we mention BSD as one of the "free"
licenses in DFSG, and have no mention of this problem there. I'll try to
contact Moxa
Igor Grobman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, could you explain to me how this advertising clause is so
> harmful?
http://www.oryxsoft.com/rms/rms-bsd-license.html>
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
26 matches
Mail list logo
