[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Legal Notes (was License issue / dependencies

From: Tony Theodore
Subject: Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Legal Notes (was License issue / dependencies on OpenSSL)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:48:34 +1100

On 28 February 2011 11:03, Volker Grabsch <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> Thanks for your work on our new "Legal" section!

You're welcome, I added a "Contributions" section and expanded the
"Package Licences" section. This is about as far as I can go with it,
feel free to chop and change (see attached diff).

> Lothar May schrieb:

>> According to
>> freedom 0 and our
>> own license,
>> the mingw-cross-env project can be used in countless different
>> environments each with their own special license considerations.
>> --
>> But this is just my personal opinion, I like your style of writing and
>> my sentence might break this :-).
> I'd also prefer the second variant.

Okay, I changed it to:

According to freedom 0 and our own licence, you can use
mingw-cross-env in countless different environments, each with it's
own special legal considerations.

I've changed the tone to be a little more conversational and removed
the third person references. There's no more "mingw-cross-env
project", the only mention is in the above. Should it be MinGW Cross

>> I'd add some sentence like "This is no legal advice, it is just meant
>> as general guidance" at the beginning.
> That's a good idea. However, maybe it chould be formulated in a
> nicer way.

I added a new preamble section. It may be a little long-winded, but
I'm certain it's the right analogy without being a dry disclaimer -
"It's all code...Choosing the right compiler"

>> In the section "LGPL and Static Linking" I'd remove the sentence and
>> instead link somewhere else where this is stated or cite. Actually, I
>> just looked for quite some time for some place (FSF, ...) where this
>> is clearly stated. The only place I could find was wikipedia, in other
>> places it is not as clear:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Sentence replaced with specific section of the article. Main article
is linked in the preamble.

> There's also the licensing FAQ of the FSF. For instance, the following
> part describes how to allow for GPL-incompatible licenses to co-exist
> with your own GPL code:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
> Also, we should link to the FTF (Freedom Task Force of the FSFE):
> http://fsfe.org/projects/ftf/

Link is added to the preamble section with some extra verbiage based
on your comment below.

> Those people are absolutely great. Some time ago I had a somewhat
> complicated licensing issue. The replies I got various mailing lists
> weren't very helpful, but the answer I got from the FTF was really
> eye-opening.

Thanks for reminding me, I think you mentioned them before, but I had
the Software Freedom Law Centre in my mind. This project seems an
ideal starting point for any legal issues.



Attachment: legal-notes.diff
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]