Re: Which license for a documentation?

To: Debian Legal <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Which license for a documentation?
From: Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:47:18 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 5E6B4062-B668-11D8-912D-00039317863E@suespammers.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 40C0B719.1050502@verizon.net>
References: <[🔎] 3b4b0846031650811c3e44f55be62a31@bouncing.localnet> <[🔎] 40C0B719.1050502@verizon.net>


On Jun 4, 2004, at 13:53, Josh Triplett wrote:

MJ Ray wrote:

Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:

"I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask meto

link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted."


"Please link to this site" seems non-free to me.


If it were "you must link to my site", then it wouldn't. But it's not.

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Which license for a documentation?
  - From: MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
- Re: Which license for a documentation?
  - From: Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>

Prev by Date: Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]
Next by Date: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
Previous by thread: Re: Which license for a documentation?
Next by thread: Re: Which license for a documentation?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread