Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: I suggest you Google up user does the link. [...] I suggest you just post the URL(s) you mean. Google results pages are highly volatile and vary by browser location: what you saw then may not be what I see now. It also seems unkind to tell upstream developers to use non-free software like Google, instead of writing great free software like they usually do. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build
Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de wrote: [...]. However, Debian's policy on licensing usually involves taking the high road rather than doing what you can get away with. [...] Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyers and it really sucks if you're a maintainer who gets a complaint from the copyright holder. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyers and it really sucks if you're a maintainer who gets a complaint from the copyright holder. It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign, BTW. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause
In message 20090108232546.5a3d9873@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes But anyway, there *has* to be a trademark to begin with, in order for trademark laws to apply. I don't know whether Alice is a trademark or is eligible to become one. I don't know about US law, but certainly in the UK, trademark law is a bit like copyright law - using a name automatically creates a trademark(TM). Note I wrote (TM), and *not* (R). I'm planning to have another go at writing a free Pick implementation when I can find the time, and right from the get-go I will be referring to it as MaVen (TM). That INSTANTLY gives me trademark rights. The difference between (TM) and (R) is that (R) means registered, and as such it's a lot easier to enforce (a bit like you need to register copyrights in the US if you want to get decent damages for infringement). But if I call my product MaVen (TM) it makes it a lot easier for me to defend myself in a trademark fight against someone just using Maven, and if I can show they named their product after mine, I would have pretty much the same redress as if I had actually registered the trademark. The main effect of not registering the trademark there simply makes the burden of proof on me somewhat higher. (Oh - and if you're thinking of the Windows(r)/Lindows fiasco, MS would have been able to sue Lindows for naming their product with intent to cause confusion with Windows even if they didn't have a registered trademark. They'd probably have lost on the grounds confusion was unlikely, but they'd've had a case.) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build
(Here goes an email with actual content, since I messed up...) I suggest you Google up user does the link. [...] I suggest you just post the URL(s) you mean. Google results pages are highly volatile and vary by browser location: what you saw then may not be what I see now. You don't really need Google, you just need a tiny bit of knowledge about some very famous things the FSF had said in the past. It has turned up for NeXt and GNU Readline, for instance. Asking this is like asking for a reference that Abraham Lincoln was a US President--it's just too well known. If you really want a reference, try this: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF # Can I release a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools? # # It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the # program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with # plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the # plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. # # If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to # each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, # which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the # plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must # be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and # that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is # distributed for use with these plug-ins. It also seems unkind to tell upstream developers to use non-free software like Google, instead of writing great free software like they usually do. You are being ridiculous. Google's search engine runs on their own machines. They're not distributing it. Which means that most free licenses wouldn't require Google to release any source code at all. (And the ones that do are highly controversial.) If you like, you can pretend that Google's search engine is under BSD. That would make no difference whatsoever as to your rights to get it (which are nonexistent in either case). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
