Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:36:57PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
apt-get is licensed GPLv2 and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
No, apt is GPL-2+.
cyrus-{imapd,sasl} has BSD-style license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
OpenLDAP has BSD-style (OpenLDAP) license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
subversion has Apache 2.0 license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
I think you are misunderstanding the AGPL.
--
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/20130702145732.ga15...@scru.org
Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your arguments (e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just the ad hominem arguments. Thanks. I am not a lawyer, though I work for lawyers. It would be irresponsible for me to present such arguments. I can suggest, however, that you can either read the license text or contact licens...@fsf.org before spreading more FUD. -- 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/20130702153039.ga16...@scru.org
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects). Hence, whenever I want to dodge these weaknesses, I license my works under the GNU GPL v2 only. I am not the only one, possibly for similar reasons. For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v2 is a flawed license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v2 ONLY, you achieve more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than relicensing by the copyright holders, and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under current or future versions of the GNU (L)GPL. This harms our community. Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under LGPLv3+ is to help the v2-only crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? -- 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/20120920215258.ga21...@scru.org
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :) There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's ideals. Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rather than trying to find gremlins in them. Utter crap. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New MP3 License Terms Demand $0.75 Per Decoder
3. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html I wonder whether it's time to cease all mp3 players from Debian as well. FWIW, this licensing change occurred in mid-2001.
Re: How to get rid of non-free packers?
So, where is that public-domain software for extracting ZOO-files? Somebody must find it and then create Debian-package of it. IMHO creating new ZOO-archives is not very important for us. IIRC, the ZOO extracters were Ooz and Looz.
documentation licenses
Since it seems rather unclear whether or not the GFDL and OPL are DFSG-free with all permutations of their optional clauses, is anyone suggesting that documentation in Debian be held to a different standard than the DFSG? On the other hand, if the various restrictions on modification and printed copies in the GFDL can be considered DFSG-free, then what about such restrictions in the OPL? Would it be possible for a document to be licensed freely yet prevent commercial printed copies to go into main under current or future guidelines? If there are to be separate standards for documentation, how would such documentation qualify, and how can the potential slippery slope be avoided?
