Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. Wouldnt pass NEW with *those* .ps only. Yes, PS can be source/preferred form for modification for stuff to, there are those people who write it directly, and thats fine. But in this case its pretty clear the source/preferred form for modification is a tex document, so we would request that. -- bye, Joerg From a NM after doing the license stuff: I am glad that I am not a lawyer! What a miserable way to earn a living. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vczk6b7q@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?
tag 614525 - pending thanks Hi Joerg On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. Wouldnt pass NEW with *those* .ps only. Yes, PS can be source/preferred form for modification for stuff to, there are those people who write it directly, and thats fine. But in this case its pretty clear the source/preferred form for modification is a tex document, so we would request that. Ok, thanks for too the point of view from ftp-masters. I have not checked, it yet, but then the same problem may arise for 'multimix', which I encountered as it FTBFS too due to missing 'ghostscript' for ps2pdf in Build-Depends [1]. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/618031 I have cancelled the NMU for the moment. Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL applications using Python (OpenSSL issue?)
2011/3/7 Ulrik Sverdrup ulrik.sverd...@gmail.com: Can GPLv3+ applications written in Python exist in Debian main? The applications in question do not use an openssl exception. Python uses OpenSSL so the moment the application starts, it is linking against it too: $ objdump -p /usr/bin/python2.6 | grep NEEDED NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libutil.so.1 NEEDED libssl.so.0.9.8 NEEDED libcrypto.so.0.9.8 NEEDED libz.so.1 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libc.so.6 In my case I am talking about a GPLv3+ package that exists in Debian -- kupfer Where do I draw the line for using/linking against ssl? a) Using Python2.6 b) Unintentionally introducing _ssl or ssl into the imported modules (import any of urllib, httplib, socket etc!) c) Unintentionally using ssl (use urllib.urlopen on URL provided by user -- if it's https we are using openssl) d) Intentionally using ssl (import ssl and use httplib.HTTPSConnection and verify certificates) Kupfer is today at (c) in the debian archive. It exists in development version at (d). Clearly (d) has provoked thought but upon investigation I see that import ssl only triggers import _ssl which in turn is an almost no-op because _ssl is a built-in module in Python 2.6. Is this easier to answer than I think it is? I don't think this is easy to resolve. It's not the developer's (mine) issue, it's not the users issue but it's the distributors issue. FYI, it was briefly discussed on Python-dev: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109032.html Of course kupfer (example app) can work without ssl. But the thread finds another problem, the inavailablity of hashlib (thus md5 and sha1): http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109051.html But you're also left with not being able to 'import hashlib'. While python has fallback code, those modules (_md5, _sha, _sha256, _sha512) aren't built if openssl was found at build time. So you can't just select at runtime that you didn't want to use openssl. Not being able to import hashlib unfortunately makes urllib2 (and a lot of 3rd party packages) fail to import. md5 and sha1 are used in many desktop programs, for example to locate file thumbnails. Ulrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTik=_+Q�dy93wuzpmsgudbdxo63dzq0xyuw...@mail.gmail.com
distributing a restricted branding icon OK?
We are working on an eMusic.com extension to Banshee. They allow use (http://www.emusic.com/affiliate/affiliate_faq.html#9) of their unmodified logo. Bruce said back in 2005 (on http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/08/msg00069.html): When creating the DFSG, I recognized, and respected, the right of authors to manage their own brand using trademarks, and to restrict the use of those trademarks in derived works as long as DFSG-compliant use of the software would be possible after a brand substitution. Is changing http://www.emusic.com/favicon.ico to a PNG modifying it? Assume it's not, would we be OK including that image in our Debian package of Banshee? Thanks, Gabriel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTikKKvgHQH_t=uaSLE=swhxgiegobr7qi9yjx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: distributing a restricted branding icon OK?
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 11:54 -0500, Gabriel Burt a écrit : Is changing http://www.emusic.com/favicon.ico to a PNG modifying it? Assume it's not, would we be OK including that image in our Debian package of Banshee? No, it would not. This icon is not free, in terms of copyright - and that’s regardless of any trademark issues. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1300210196.30617.179.camel@meh
Re: distributing a restricted branding icon OK?
Gabriel Burt gabriel.b...@gmail.com writes: Is changing http://www.emusic.com/favicon.ico to a PNG modifying it? Assume it's not, would we be OK including that image in our Debian package of Banshee? The way iceweasel handles non-free search engine logos is to download them into the user's local profile when needed. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vwgvtph@mid.gienah.enyo.de
SecurVille
Se natilde;o visualizar correctamente esta mensagem, clique aqui. nbsp;Para natilde;o receber mais emails da Securitas, clique aqui. nbsp;
