Re: whitakers-words_0.2020.10.27-1_multi.changes REJECTED
On 15944 March 1977, calumlikesapplepie wrote: I thought this might happen: the license is unconventional, and I wasn't sure it would fly. I cc'ed debian-legal in this response: I'm pretty sure the license is DFSG-free, but IANAL, and they can confirm in a way I can't. I'm curious to read other opinions. The reason is the license. As usual, people should NOT write their own. They are bound to fail. To be fair, the software probably predates the GPL v1, and certainly the v2. That may be. - License: words-license This is a free program, which means it is proper to copy it and pass it on to your friends. Consider it a developmental item for which there is no charge. However, just for form, it is Copyrighted (c). Permission is hereby freely given for any and all use of program and data. You can sell it as your own, but at least tell me. . This version is distributed without obligation, but the developer would appreciate comments and suggestions. . All parts of the WORDS system, source code and data files, are made freely available to anyone who wishes to use them, for whatever purpose. - This is not free. Going though it, it allows to copy/distribute stuff, then it allows any kind of usage and selling. And then the first mistake, it requires you to inform them. Thats repeated in a less strict statement. And then it tells again that its available to anyone to use it for whatever purpose. I disagree. It requires you to inform them, yes, but only if you "sell it as your own". AFAIK, that is equivalent to saying "Inform me if you distribute this without crediting me". That's a less strict version of the acceptable "Keep this copyright notice", since as long as we keep it, we don't need to inform anyone. It still fails and stays non-free, as its not a simple "Keep this (C)" line. Also, that it "only" asks you to do so when you sell it, makes no difference for the inclusion into main. Further, the next sentence says that it is distributed "without obligation": since you aren't obligated to do anything, it's explicitly in the clear for the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test. Thats at minimum a contradiction inside the license. In all of that they miss something important - you are not allowed to modify. I interpret the fact that it lets you use the source code for "whatever purpose" to mean that you can modify, compile, and distribute it. After all, source code doesn't have much of a use on its own, and a modification is a use. Supporting this idea is the fact that the WTFPL is considered GPL compatible by the FSF. This is, in many ways, a more formal version of that. No is not, the big difference for the WTFPL is that it actually lists all the neccessary rights, including allowing modification. The above does not. So two mistakes, must tell them and no right to modify -> non-free. Even if one goes down on the requirement to notify them, the right to modify stays missing. Best would be if upstream changes to a well-known free license and adds a polite hint that feedback would be nice, but not required. Then it can go into main. That's... difficult. The original author has been dead for a decade, and (AFAIK) the digital preservation efforts whose source I am using is not explicitly authorized by their heir. Upstream appears to be interpreting the license to mean that modification is OK, since they have done quite a bit of it: additionally, comments throughout the source code and original website strongly indicate that the source was intended to be modified. I hope this logic makes sense, and that it would hold up 'in court'. Upstream often has a different opinion than we do. What kind of comments? -- bye, Joerg
Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials
On 15622 March 1977, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity], a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger. However, when I saw the README, it says: Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge at non-profits and for evaluation. For long-term usage, however, please make sure to purchase a license at [link redacted]. Is it acceptable for inclusion into Debian main, given the condition above? Please contact upstream and let them clarify this. If their intent is "It's GPL, it would be nice BUT NOT AT ALL REQUIRED that long-term users get a license" then it is ok. Could be worded clearer then what they did, but if its just a wish, its ok. If their intent is "It's GPL, but only for non-profit and evaluation, long-term usage has to get a license" then it is not ok for Debian as that does not work with the chosen license. And until they clarify, it is safer to go with the bad interpretation and keep it out of Debian. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is not saying "I'm rubbish". Are you sure that it's entirely possible? No idea. It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two human languages, and I'm not sure if having two not perfectly equivalent licenses is such a best practice. LiLiQ licenses, for example, are written in French and the English translation is NOT authoritative CeCILL, also a french one, is good in french AND english... French wasnt the best example. :) Nah, don't come up with another. I'm sure there are tons of licenses in something different than english. There may be even useful ones. (Also, I personally doubt we do need yet another license in whatever language. We do have ENOUGH of them to chose from). Also, legislation varies both in times and places anyway so this policy might just be unfair (if not discriminatory) for people outside the US sphere of influence. Legislation is different anywhere, yes. And no, we are not able to judge against all possible systems, obviously. We do try to keep major points that we know off in mind. It's not just Arabic: what about licenses in Russian, in Chinese or Kiswahili? Same story. It's not actually a point against arabic, it's one thats equally valid for nearly any language on this planet. If there is a license in $random language and it states that all translations are rubbish, it has the same trouble. We don't need examples that use entirely different alphabets. :) Maybe Debian doesn't have the human resources to be "fair" in this regards. But if licenses in Debian must have their authoritative text in English, shouldn't it be noted somewhere in the DFSG? No. Because the DFSG lists something inherently unchanging and entirely independent from the human resources doing stuff. The inability of current members of a team in Debian to read and understand a random language and legal foo around it is (not so, but comparably) easily changeable. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth nothing. This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all non-english developers and users. Can any mitigation be put in place? Well, sure. Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is not saying "I'm rubbish". Impossible: We could get enough DDs for every language that also know their way in legal foo to deal with it - and then have em join ftpteam. Slow, but workable if really needed: We could look for legal counsel for specific cases. I'm sure I forgot possibilities. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
On 15317 March 1977, أحمد المحمودي wrote: Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice. This is the authoritative Arabic version of the license, followed by the informal English translation of the license. And it has this: --8<---cut here---start->8--- This is the informal English translation of Waqf General Public License. Anything but the Arabic version of the license has no value except for convenience of our English speaking users. When we talk about the License we refer to the Arabic version, which is the only one we officially offer, we will try our best to make other translation as accurate as possible but because of the nature of human languages we use one single reference language. --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Independent of whatever actual software is using this, we have a hard time accepting this license at all for anything better than non-free. None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth nothing. And I also wonder if a pure translation is enough to "get it", as the preamble starts with a load of text around what Islam forbids (or not), how much does islamic rules knowledge come into play later? -- bye, Joerg
Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
On 14516 March 1977, Markus Frosch wrote: > What's your opinion about that clause? non-free -- bye, Joerg
Re: redistributability of two software pieces in non-free
On 13334 March 1977, Johannes Schauer wrote: While this software violates dfsg without doubt, I wonder if it could be distributed in non-free because it states that it can only be copied for academic use. Is copying equal to distribution? Not it can't, as it forbids redistribution. Which is about the only thing thats required for non-free. Here it states distribution directly but also adds the educational, research and non-profit purpose. This would meet the requirements for inclusion in non-free, no? Yes it does. It's the users task to check non-free licenses before they do anything with software in it, so the limitation is fine there. -- bye, Joerg The Rathaus is the town hall, not where rats live (some may dispute that). (http://cioppino.blogs.com/hungrig_in_san_francisco/2006/06/englisch_oder_d.html) -- 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/87li2xj1na@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Font license and inclusion in debian (RTP 719605)
On 13304 March 1977, Vincent Lhote wrote: Conditions of use You may: -Install the fonts on as many devices as you wish. -Distribute the fonts to anyone you wish. -Use the fonts in any commercial or non-commercial document. -Save the fonts in a format that would best fit your purposes. You may not: -Modify the fonts in a font editor software. -Sell or rent out the fonts. Non-free is ok for this. That basically just requires distribution rights, which are given. -- bye, Joerg lamont is there a tag for won't be fixed until sarge+1? sam depends whether the BTS is year 2037 compliant -- 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/87ioz774qj@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?
On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: The new license for AMD microcode updates seems to be quite obnoxious. Yes. Is it acceptable for non-free? Yes. non-free doesn't need much more than us being able to distribute it. Except, ... Without limiting the foregoing, the Software may implement third party technologies for which You must obtain licenses from parties other than AMD. You agree that AMD has not obtained or conveyed to You, and that You shall be responsible for obtaining the rights to use and/or distribute the applicable underlying intellectual property rights related to the third party technologies. These third party technologies are not licensed hereunder. , ... you need to make sure that this is fullfilled. IE. do they have other stuff with shit licenses included? If so THEN there may be trouble, unless that license grants distribute rights. If You use the Software (in whole or in part), You shall adhere to all applicable U.S., European, and other export laws, including but not limited to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR), (15 C.F.R. Sections 730 through 774), and E.U. Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000. Further, pursuant to Section 740.6 of the EAR, You hereby certify that, except pursuant to a license granted by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security or as otherwise permitted pursuant to a License Exception under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR), You will not (1) export, re-export or release to a national of a country in Country Groups D:1, E:1 or E:2 any restricted technology, software, or source code You receive hereunder, or (2) export to Country Groups D:1, E:1 or E:2 the direct product of such technology or software, if such foreign produced direct product is subject to national security controls as identified on the Commerce Control List (currently found in Supplement 1 to Part 774 of EAR). For the most current Country Group listings, or for additional information about the EAR or Your obligations under those regulations, please refer to the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security?s website at ttp://www.bis.doc.gov/. That one does not make any fun, but its limited with If You use the software. I think AMD lost their brain leaving their lawyers free here, but meh. -- bye, Joerg I'm in no condition to drive...wait! I shouldn't listen to myself, I'm drunk! -- 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/87mwp7qat2@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?
On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Without limiting the foregoing, the Software may implement third party technologies for which You must obtain licenses from parties other than AMD. You agree that AMD has not obtained or conveyed to You, and that You shall be responsible for obtaining the rights to use and/or distribute the applicable underlying intellectual property rights related to the third party technologies. These third party technologies are not licensed hereunder. , ... you need to make sure that this is fullfilled. IE. do they have other stuff with shit licenses included? If so THEN there may be trouble, unless that license grants distribute rights. Given the fact that this is microprocessor microcode we are talking about, AMD better have conveyed to us EVERY patent license required to use their processors and update their microcode when we bought them. Tell that to AMD, not me. That one does not make any fun, but its limited with If You use the software. Which is just about every Debian system that installs firmware-nonfree, if use can be interpreted as installing the package. Yes, but we are talking about non-free, not main. For main we make sure that users can just install it and be happy. For non-free thats up to the user to (double-)check. Anyway, should I raise a ruckus upstream about this? I do not feel confortable being the maintainer of a package with the above EAR crap in its license. About the patent/licenses stuff above, you should, I think. -- bye, Joerg 00:00:11 LupusE goebelmeier: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html - warum steht hier 'mplayer'? ist das eine whishlist? -- 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/87bo5mk0us@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: On accepting pre-generated doc from upstream
On 13235 March 1977, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: As a possible workaround, upstream has suggested to provide the documentation already generated (could be for the submodules and/or the full doc, this has not been discussed yet). My first reaction has been to think that this will not be allowed in Debian, but giving it some more thought,: FTPMaster accepts this for documentation, just: - full source must be there. That is, that whats edited, not something in the middle[1] that one might be able to edit too. - the stuff is, in principle, buildable by Debian. With tools available in the same component than the package. (ie. main only for packages in main!) - the maintainer MUST ensure that the stuff shipped is actually what comes out of building it, ie. matches the source we ship. Down to the last bit (minus things like Date headers or so that just vary on purpose). [1] like, write it in a non-free editor in a propetiery format, then export it to (say) LaTeX, ship that. (And keep doing that). We don't take LaTeX as the source. So, could we accept pre-generated documentation in this case? Yes. Though it might still be better to not do it, see reasons listed elsewhere (like, Don). -- bye, Joerg -- 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/87vc5ngb4f@lennier.ganneff.de
Re: Suitable license for Distkeys SSH key distribution tool
On 13147 March 1977, Martin Steigerwald wrote: We did not finally decide on a license. Current favorite is GPL 2 or later which should be compatible with the licenses the libraries the script use use[1]. ruby: Ruby 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL) ruby-net-ssh: Expat ruby-net-ssh-gateway: Expat, I think ruby-net-sftp: Expat, I think ruby-termios: GPL (2+ according to copyright file) What are usual licenses for such a kind of program? Do you have any recommendation or see any issues with GPL? I tend to use GPL-2 or later in order to avoid any possible license incompatibilies that are specific to the GPL-3. But according to [1] the GPL-3 would work fine as well? Any recommendations? It depends on what you want to achieve with the license you select. Everyone can take it, sell it, incorporate it into own products - BSD. Oh we also them to give the source to whoever they give the binary - GPL Or other way: With GPL you give your recipients the freedom to run and distribute the software, as well as the source and modifications to it. But you also enforce that they have to continue that with the next in line. With BSD they can do the same, but there it stops. Chose your pill, some people prefer the one, some the other. Both of them work for what you intend. -- bye, Joerg .SH AUTHOR This manual page was not written by anyone. It sprang forth into existence on its own. -- 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/87ip4xegp4@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception
On 13107 March 1977, Giulio Paci wrote: During a package review it came out that the software license includes this statement: Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed to have been agreed upon which comes closest to what the parties intended commercially. In any case guarantee/warranty shall be limited to gross negligent actions or intended actions or fraudulent concealment. I contacted the original author and he explained that this statement was a request of their legal department to avoid the possibility that third party can change the license of the software (I guess a misinterpretation of the GPL-2 clauses 9 and 10). Unfortunately the author is not working anymore for the copyright holder and I am having some trouble contacting someone that is allowed to remove the exception. My reading is that their legal department isn't worth any of the money they get, and they should look for a new one. Or maybe one that understands english. Reading §9 it sums down to 'FSF may publish new versions, with different version numbers. If your program specifies any later version, the later ones may be used instead'. They are using GPL-2. They do not specify any later, they even go as far and include the release date of the GPL-2 which they use. Now, §10 tells one what to do if you want to include the GPLed code into non-GPL licensssed or commercial stuff. Anyone who can read, especially when working for a legal department, should see that their whole extra text does not even remotely do anything besides showing they don't know what they do. I see no trouble in getting the software into Debian. -- bye, Joerg I'm in no condition to drive...wait! I shouldn't listen to myself, I'm drunk! -- 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/878v751wz5@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Binary Code License Agreement
On 12853 March 1977, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: I recently received a report that jai-* packages may not be compatible with debian non-free. Specifically I am looking at jai-core's MEDIALIB FOR JAI/SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS section 2: ... 2. License to Distribute Software. In addition to the license granted in Section 1 (Software Internal Use and Development License Grant) of these Supplemental Terms, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including but not limited to, Section 3 (Java Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software in binary code form only, provided that you (i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of your Programs, (ii) do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iii) do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (iv) only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, (v) agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software, and (vi) bundle the Software with the implementation of the Java Advanced Imaging and the JAI Image I/O Open Source Project. ... The issue here would be that the jai-* packages are libraries, and as such not distributed bundled as part of your Programs. Could we consider that packages for debian (as as OS) are 'Programs' ? Leave alone that, can you guarantee that (ii) won't hit? (iv) is also impossible to do. (v) Oh sure. -- bye, Joerg [GPG Keysigning stuff] The web of thrust would become completely unthrustful. -- 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/87hav8fpry@gkar.ganneff.de
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: debian.* domains
Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.* domain and donate it to the project, please contact hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it. Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of Domain handling for Debian. Cool. Does http://www.debian.org/intro/organization need changing to make that clear? They are listed as DNS Maintainer, and thats exactly what they are, SPI has nothing to do with that (we only set the NS entries in the domain). So I don't think so, for all practical purposes people will have when looking there (get a DNS record changed), its them do deal with. -- bye, Joerg Trying is the first step towards failure. -- 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/8762tp6oe3@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: debian.* domains
Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.* domain and donate it to the project, please contact hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it. Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of Domain handling for Debian. -- bye, Joerg My first contact with Linux was with SuSE 6.3. A friend of mine installed it on my pc, and just take me a couple of hours to reinstall Windows on it. -- 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/87ipxyb22z@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: US government notification of new crypto package?
which seems to indicate I need to update the US Bureau of Export Administration before uploading this package for the first time. Is this still a requirement? IIRC the archive software (dak) does this automatically for every new package (or every upload, not sure) whether it contains arms^Wcrypto stuff or not so that Debian can basically ignore this problem until the requirements change. So long as the upload queue continues to reside in the US, this is true. However, the current ftp team have made several proposals that seem to disregard this aspect of the crypto-in-main solution; I would recommend that any US-based developers who are concerned about compliance with US export regs be watchful for future developments. What the hell are you talking about? And for the rest on this list: You don't need to care, the archive cares for you. -- bye, Joerg It’s not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to fit in eight hours of TV a day. -- 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/874odecbr6@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with crockford himself. His final answer: If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not use the software. Then his software will simply be not packaged. -- bye, Joerg http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument -- 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/87eij4skhy@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: [non-free] Packaging a closed-source application with limited distribution access
On 11873 March 1977, Pau Garcia i. Quiles wrote: Given that the freely downloadable tarball will NOT accept commercial license keys, I need to package a commercial version of the tarball. I have been told this should not be a problem for Intersystems (I waiting for a definitive answer on this, though), because without a license key the commercial tarball behaves like the free version: single-user. Accessing the commercial tarball would not be a problem either, because the company I work for licenses and resells Caché, so we already have access to the commercial tarballs. Questions - Is this kind of software, with such a limited access to the binary tarball, allowed to be in non-free? The main point within non-free is Are we allowed to distribute it. All the rest is a nice addition, but not neccessary. For access to upstreams distributed stuff - well. Debian has lotsa stuff where we basically are the main distribution point nowadays, as upstream went away. Difference is the availability of source, so we can actually fix bugs there. Should be easy in this case - Its buggy? Remove the binary crap, should upstream no longer be accessible. - In case the answer to the former question is negative because of the limited access relaying on me being available: if I would get (from Intersystems) a username and password with access only to the commercial tarballs, just for packaging purposes, and NO public disclosure of username and password (i. e. only to one or two more people, think something like the Intersystems Caché packaging team), would it be acceptable? What does it help if its not you as a SPOF, but you and one other person? You both go away, boom. Well, would be an easy removal then. Besides, I would be surprised if you get the permission to redistribute the whole thing, when they have such a restricted access to it in the first place. After all the whole set of Debian mirrors would basically provide their tarball, making all their user/password access *pointless*. 2) We are deploying it to a lot of remote clients and packaging it makes deployment and upgrades much much easier. I'm going to package Caché no matter if it's going to non-free or not. Well, yes, you can use an own archive too :) So yes, if you really get a license that allows redistribution for us, then it can go in. -- bye, Joerg mrvn Anyone with a cdrw/dvdrw drive up for some crazy experiments? Ever noticed how the color changes when you burn something on a CD/DVD? Are there ways to control it? I want ISOPAINT: Paint pictures into an iso image visible after its burned to cd/dvd. doogie interesting idea doogie how long have you been off your medication? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Art content licensing question
Okay, here's a brief explanation of what it is that I'm trying to accomplish. There are a significant number of artists out there who would like to contribute art (graphics, music, etc) to FOSS game projects, but are nervous about their work being exploited through loopholes in licenses like the GPL, which may allow proprietary interests to bundle their work with code that doesn't allow free redistribution. I would prefer to avoid getting into a discussion about whether this is really permissible under the GPL, and instead address the issue with a clear, simple license that leaves no room for interpretation on this matter. In short: If someone creates freely redistributable media for a game, they want to be sure that media is only used as a part of a freely redistributable game. This would prevent someone from bundling their artwork with, say, a game engine, and putting restrictions on the redistribution of the game engine, while allowing free redistribution of the art. http://blog.ganneff.de/blog/2008/03/22/write-a-new-license-every-day.html You are going the wrong way. We have too many licenses, we DO NOT NEED YET ANOTHER. -- bye, Joerg It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens. -- Woody Allen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: AGPL and Debian
On 11583 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote: recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian. The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems). Steve had a point there, we should have mentioned the version we talk about. It is, as bug #495721 asked us, AGPLv3. -- bye, Joerg Some NM: A developer contacts you and asks you to met for a keysign. What is your response and why? Do you like beer? When do we meet? [...] pgpLWwSHdwS5k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AGPL and Debian
All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting services for people needing to put their personal modifications not suiteable for a general public consumption and not interested in any further work to be put in that project quite short sighted and hard to believe once there will be some more of those projects and some more people using them. if you are doing changes to the service that are not suitable for general public then you surely not let the public access them at all in the first place?! Otherwise they would be suitable for them and yes, then you have to offer a possibility to get to the source. -- bye, Joerg * libpng2 no libpng3 no why ? because no yes no yes no yes bullshit no yes no yes no yes stop ? no when someday beep beep beep beep (Closes: #157011) -- Christian Marillat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:41:58 +0200 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public Domain for Germans
On 11558 March 1977, jfr fg wrote: Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text, if I want the result to be dfsg-free? I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. You can't make something PD in Germany, that just doesn't work with our laws. You should also NOT create new licenses / new words for things, that makes it just unneccessarily complex, for example if people want to bundle stuff together. Even if the intention is to give others full rights to do whatever they want to do with it. Use existing things, the world has more than enough of it. The best way for you IMO would be to either use the BSD or MIT/X11 style license. It will effectively do the same (allow everybody to use the work for any purpose). -- bye, Joerg AM: Whats the best way to find out if your debian/copyright is correct? NM: Upload package into the NEW queue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Documentation copyright/licensing
On 11441 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: Now, each HTML file contains this comment: Generated by Doxygen 1.3.9.1 Each file also contains this footer: Copyright copy; 2005-2008 Intel Corporation. All Rights Reserved. When I inquired in #debian-devel, AzaThat indicated that the All Rights Reserved has little or no legal meaning anymore. I wanted to get some opinions on this list before I upload however. It doesn't have much meaning if the license is otherwise specified and there are no doubts about it. If its the only statement one can find in the sources then one has problems. All of the program sources are clearly covered under GPL2. The documentation is mechanically generated from the sources. Does the footer statement on documentation pages conflict with that license. My initial inclination is that it does not. Any other opinions? If its like this you can just upload and it wont get rejected. -- bye, Joerg exa There is no point in trying to fix bugs if I won't have an account. Sorry. pgptTXngQ88D8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository
On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote: Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write. Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly clear by itself that debian-legal does NOT do any lawyers work (and whatever else people put into that crap). Its also absolutely unimportant if someone is a DD or not, it doesnt matter at all, as people are writing their own opinion about $stuff on the list, not that of Debian. -- bye, Joerg GyrosGeier SCSI benötigt drei Terminierungen, eine am einen Ende, eine am anderen Ende, und das Leben einer Ziege über einer schwarzen Kerze pgpuXa47pJTF9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Licensing of package nauty
On 11274 March 1977, Matthew Johnson wrote: I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license, but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification needed before it can be included in non-free? This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence. Err, what? If its dfsg compatible then its fine for main. The current license is idiotic but acceptable for non-free. -- bye Joerg pasc man pasc the AMD64 camp is not helped by the list of people supporting it pasc when nerode is on your side, you know you're doing something wrong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Skype license
On 0 March 1977, Mario Iseli wrote: I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be done with Skype's license to make it distributable. Erase it and take a sensible one. With the current one it wont ever get near to the archive as it fails in just too many points, even for non-free. Is the debian-unofficial.org project still alive? I think that would be the right point to distribute it from. It would be better they do not take it. -- bye Joerg pasc man pasc the AMD64 camp is not helped by the list of people supporting it pasc when nerode is on your side, you know you're doing something wrong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Skype license
On 11109 March 1977, Øystein Gisnås wrote: I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be done with Skype's license to make it distributable. Erase it and take a sensible one. With the current one it wont ever get near to the archive as it fails in just too many points, even for non-free. -- bye Joerg mhy Ganneff airlines: departing from a window near you pgp9FJoLe298v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL and cover texts
On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-08 at 08:58 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: Can I get an explanation of why Debian considers a GFDL manual with cover texts non-free? http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 The position statement and the vote all conflate invariant sections with cover texts and dedications as if exactly the same arguments against invariant sections applied to a cover text like a gnu manual. Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands of words nonfree? Because it is non-free. Compare with a source tarball, where one could say But this is just one twenty-line file which is non-free, and the other 50 lines are free. Why is this enough to make the rest non-free?. That just doesn't work. For the rest see Manojs links please. -- bye Joerg But i don't think that we talk a lot, as far as i can see, you live in the USA. Australia. Only minor details like timezone and hemisphere but pretty much the same. TZ is UTC+10 pgpPIvhuh7jOY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dcraw license change: (see bug #424663)
On 11071 March 1977, Steve King wrote: If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage qualifies as full source code. Thats ok. -- bye Joerg (13:24) Aquariophile ist iptables eigentlich nur ein tool zum verhindern von aussenkonnecti,erungen auf gewissen ports oder ist iptables eine firewall? (13:27) maxx ist ein packet filter (13:27) Aquariophile maxx: also der verhindert pings? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Ion3 licence
On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote: A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the official software being distributed timely and only from one source, usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable rammifications of their choice. I would recommend to your upstream source to strongly reconsider including these clauses. Oh, he knows what he's doing. Which means he doesnt want his software to be packaged or he wouldnt do such a braindead thing, so best is to not waste time on it for a non-free thing. Or fork it, wouldnt be the first fork of a tool where upstreams gone mad for no real reason. -- bye Joerg 4. If you are using the Program in someone else's bedroom at any Monday 3:05 PM, you are not allowed to modify the Program for ten minutes. [This clause provided by Inphernic; every licence should contain at least one clause, the reasoning behind which is far from obvious.] -- libdumb 1:0.9.3-1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License missing in the tarball but present on the website
On 10997 March 1977, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote: Upstream published an errata on the website. The don't have a gpg key to sign the post: http://vdrift.net/article.php/license-change-2007-03-23-release I will copy the post in the debian/changelog with a link to the website. Is it enough? debian/copyright is the place where such stuff has to be. -- bye Joerg towo Das Internet, jetzt auf 47 DVDs - oder auf 2 CDs in der jugenfreien Fassung? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
On 10816 March 1977, Al Nikolov wrote: Please clarify for me, in which section should go a GPL-licensed package, which is quite unusable without (but technically not Depends on), er, obscure blobs of data, usually gathered by a way of sniffing data flow between a proprietary application and a hardware device, an then just replaying? To me, this package should be moved from main to contrib. Yes. -- bye Joerg * maxx hat weasel seine erste packung suse gebracht, der hat mich dafür später zu debian gebracht weasel .oO( und jetzt ist der DD. jeder macht mal fehler.. ) maxx du hast 2 gemacht du warst auch noch advocate :P -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
On 10718 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of dvds for free. When posting on such questions using your debian.org email address, please try to be clear about what us you're referring to. I have never heard that LinuxMagazin gave these DVDs to Debian. Oh yes, well, the @debian.org is used automagically by gnus whenever i write to a debian list. With us i mean all those running the booth (and later DebianDay in .mx, we had them there too). Having looked at the CD label art that was used in the magazine edition, I am concerned that it's not made very obvious for the uninitiated user that this is an unofficial build of sarge. I don't think that it is /clearly/ labelled as unofficial, as we require on our website; it may be labelled unofficial in the .disk info, but that's not clear for the average user. Yah, well, its in all places one sees on the DVD (including the documentation we ship on it). I don't think it's too much to ask that these concerns be relayed to LinuxMagazin for future images they choose to publish. Yes. I relay that info to them. -- bye Joerg madduck and yes, the ftpmasters are not the most clueful people pgpUShKHKFi2a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!
On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: 2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK, backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge. Yes, where is the problem? Before I go on answering some small points in your mail - you do remember that Debian is actually free for anyone? Including freedom of changing it? Thats a DVD for a event, that happened to also get a magazine attached. I'm not very sure it happened to. It's for sale now, labeled sarge. Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of dvds for free. I dont know where the problem is with it having Debian Sarge on it (together with some notes about the included stuff, the LinuxMagazin logo and the year). The DVD doesnt say anywhere its official (if you install from it all parts that refer to it mention it either as Debian Sarge Cebit 2006 Special Edition DVD. (Release File) or as Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 Sarge - Unofficial Cebit 2006 i386/powerpc/amd64 Binary-1 (20060207)(jj/as) (.disk/info, that what gets into sources.list). We had them to give away for free at the Debian booth at this years Cebit (and took some to DebConf), and had a only very slightly modified image at this years LinuxTag. Its basically a sarge with changed kernel, a few backports and a preseeded d-i that boots on multiple architectures. Sorry to say such things and possibly raise conflictual feelings, but do you really feel this is *right*? Yes. Debian is free, you can take it and modify it. Like it or not, thats one of the reason why I work on it. And its also not labeled as being the official Sarge release, its clearly attached to a magazin. Noone would believe that Debian uses a computer magazine for a release anyways. :) It also happens since years everywhere around the world. But when I see that one of the most seriously organized projects in the world (that's you, the Debian Project) can have unprofessional lapses like this one... I guess you misunderstand something very much. Excuse me please, but if FF1.5 and X.org can be integrated that easily into Sarge, why isn't this official, on Debian mirrors? Part of our stable release politic - no updates after its released. So, this is not official. While it's not official, this is gonna affect the image of Debian (it's already done with me). People will start think one of these ways: 1. oh, they don't release earlier because they're lazy. look, they've done it for CeBIT, but then just forgot about it. 2. oh, they're don't consistent in what they're saying. it's either 'stable means stable, that's why you only got older packages with backported security fixes and that's all because that's stable', or 'hey, we can provide you with newer packages, it's just as stable as the previous definition we had about stable'. Plus, mind you, we can't download the CeBIT edition of Sarge (if this can still be labeled as Sarge). This shows that you havent understood the way free software works. The freedom attached to it means people can take it, modify it, change it, adapt, whatever. And even distribute it, shockingly. :) And just for the record - except some minor technical problems the feedback for this image (and most prior ones I/we did) was really good. -- bye Joerg 00:00:11 LupusE goebelmeier: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html - warum steht hier 'mplayer'? ist das eine whishlist? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MPL license
Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really non-free mails. So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? (Hopefully not a check every package if it has , like that GFDL crap we now have, i dont need a second of that work-producing things.) Thanks for your help. :) -- bye Joerg Thats all. Just a few questions about your package and then we got it and you will be in DAMINATION :). I have no idea what DAMINATION is but it sounds cool. Let's get going. pgpuBYk48CbKf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about upstream duty as regards with OpenSSL
On 10596 March 1977, Pierre Machard wrote: I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite some parts of the licence) My standard ssl-rejection template for that is: --8schnipp-8--- while looking at your package in NEW I discovered that it is linking against openssl, itself beeing GPL licensed. Sorry, but this doesnt work, the OpenSSL license and the GPL are incompatible. For more information, and a link to give to your upstream please visit http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 or/and http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html After this is fixed feel free to upload your package again. --8schnapp-8--- Ie Upstream adding the exception from one of those two links is enough to make it work. -- bye Joerg (Irgendwo von heise.de): Jesus war ein typischer Student: - Lebte bis er 30 war bei den Eltern, - Hatte lange Haare - Wenn er mal was tat dann wars ein Wunder -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about upstream duty as regards with OpenSSL
On 10597 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote: Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates stored anywhere public? Nope. Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/legal/ please? I'll put a link back when I remember how. Most rejections are free form text (for the debian/copyright problems there are always different filenames, different licenses, etc, for example). The rest are .txt files. Iam to lazy to wrap them in html now. Oh well, ok, look at http://ftp-master.debian.org/~joerg/templates/ now. Three are there now, ssl, php and cdbs. If you find mistakes, spelling or otherwise - please send patches. -- bye Joerg Some NM: Debian is mostly about free keysigning^Wspeech. pgpwQvmheu7gL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: This product includes PHP software, freely available from http://www.php.net/software/. It does not say this product contains PHP, or this product contains the PHP engine; it says it includes PHP *software*, which is true, as the software it includes comes from the PHP Group. So it seems to be equally true for PHP, and any packages implemented in PHP, if they are available from http://www.php.net/software/ (which PEAR is). It says includes, which i underst[and|ood] as PHP is in this, which makes it broken. Ok, if one goes and takes that as This is software written in PHP, then yes, its ok. But well ok, i go with what a native speaker tells me, thats usually better than my broken english. :) The whole part after the last - line is also useless for nearly anything out there, but except the first sentence they dont matter. I dont think the php group really wants to take the blame for all the bullshit people may produce, using one of those php licenses. IMO not ok for PEAR, any random phpFOO, but of course still ok for php itself. Why would it not be ok for PEAR? The PHP Group is upstream for PEAR. See above, so lets make it not ok for any random phpFOO. -- bye Joerg [http://www.youam.net/stuff/info...-hosting.de/server-info.php] Die Anbindung des Servers: Unser Server ist mit 100 MBits/s (=12MB pro Sekunde) an unser lokales Netzwerk angebunden, unsere Internetanbindung sind 768 kbit/s Downstream und 128 kbit/s Upstream. Dies hört sich in manchen Ohren langsam an, allerdings wird unsere Geschwindigkeit in der Regel eher gelobt als kritisiert, denn der Upstream kann auch überzogen werden, wenn der Server überlastet wird (wurde von uns an Beispielen getestet, ist allerdings nicht 100%-ig zu erklären). pgpX2j16u8M9I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter at debian-legal. So lets look at that license, not only for allow php group to use it in Debian, but also for others who made the mistake to use this license. Point 4 of it, as already pointed out by Don, is broken. Yes, there is other software with a similar problem, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt get fixed too. Drop the nor may PHP appear anywhere in its name part to make it better, thats the real bad thing in it. Point 5 the last sentence is bad. Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team. The whole part after the last - line is also useless for nearly anything out there, but except the first sentence they dont matter. I dont think the php group really wants to take the blame for all the bullshit people may produce, using one of those php licenses. IMO not ok for PEAR, any random phpFOO, but of course still ok for php itself. -- bye Joerg helix doogie: you have an interesting definition for 'interact with people' that means 'make them want to jump off cliffs' pgpjcBHyXCYRI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is libreludedb DFSG compliant?
On 10518 March 1977, Mickael Profeta wrote: As it was linked with GPL libraries, I think the package is GPL and can go to main, what is your opinion? You didnt mention that it includes LGPLed works in the source tarball. -- bye Joerg Endianess is the dispute on which end to open an egg at. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Sven Luther schrieb: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : Wrong. So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? Please look up facts before you go this road. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star.copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Write a bug against the package if its non-free is your option now. -- bye Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PHP License for stuff thats not PHP itself
Hi While doing a bit of work in the NEW queue Ive seen stuff using the PHP license (exact version doesnt matter, they differ from package to package, take http://www.php.net/license/2_02.txt or http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt as examples). (3.0 in this case taken). It starts like a random free license, 1. and 2. are OK. 3. and 4. are IMO highly questionable if not directly non-free. With 4 you dont seem to be allowed to call it php if there is a diff.gz... And now try to use that point on a php-foo package. For 5. - does one really use a license that can be randomly exchanged by any later thing? Yes, many people do use GPL 2 or later in their programs, similar point, but not fully IMO. But a big thing against using a PHP license is that it always only talks about PHP, Software provided by PHP Development Team, software made by many individuals in behalf of PHP group, and This software includes the Zend Engine. Im sure that none of the php-* modules contain the zend engine. :) So, looking at such packages in NEW - what do you guys suggest to do? *I* tend to go and kick them out. Go get upstream to use a sane license... -- bye Joerg (that much for never asking -legal :) ) If you are using an Macintosh e-mail program that is not from Microsoft, we recommend checking with that particular company. But most likely other e-mail programs like Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication -- http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office/2001/virus_alert.asp pgpnN1C1HB1DK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?
On 10298 March 1977, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: As some of you might know some time ago I created a web page for listing information about licenses discussed by debian-legal at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again until someone comes up with a better idea how to better present the work of debian-legal. Comments, objections? I would love that page working (ie new license summaries added). Would, for some obscure license crap make my life easier if such a thing appears in NEW. :) But then it should be maintained, and I know that its impossible to get something useful out of -legal (except you define long threads as useful). -- bye Joerg Ganneff kde und tastatur? passt doch nicht mit dem nutzerprofil windepp zusammen :) pgpTvSPSrRUgt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: we have bad news for your filesystems :(( it happens that some sections of the license are not compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines [0]. Who is Domenico Andreoli? I have not noticed them as a debian-legal summariser before. Who asked for this to be summarised and sent upstream so soon? A little bit of searching would have given you Package (co)-maintainer of reiserfs stuff. And he simply notified Upstream about an upcoming problem with his crap license in one of the packages he (co)-maintains. Where is the problem? -- bye Joerg maxx Aqua mach mal man brain Aquariophile maxx: schon probiert das gibts ned
Bug#244289: xball: Package includes non-free source code.
Package: xball Severity: serious Hi The package xball contains the source file act_area.c and the license for it is the following: Written by Dan Heller. Copyright 1991, O'Reilly Associates. This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. This program is -not- in the public domain. In my opinion (and some others after a short talk on IRC) is that this is non-free as it doesnt allow modification. look but dont touch. Hence this is non-free and the package should be moved out of main before we release sarge. Or this issue gets solved. Note: The Debian Maintainer of xball is one of my NMs, so I know he is working on this. This bug is merely that this issue isnt lost. Note2: Upstream was already contacted and sent a statement about his opinions. Which I dont share. But I dont want to make private mails public, so it isnt attached, instead I set a CC to him so he can attach his comment to this bug. debian-legal is in CC to get another opinion on this matter. -- bye Joerg [Es geht um MySQL] (14:35) Lam_al_Adie grummel. als ob ein subselect so kompliziert waere. (14:35) maxx als ob mysql eine db wäre... (14:35) plaisthos relationales textfile auf drogen? :0 pgplI41xMLuZs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: legalities of distributing debian pre-installed iso images.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, i have a question about the single CD that was distributed at LinuxTag for example, did it also include the soruces, or was an arrangement like that already done ? For 2002 it doesnt include sources. If someone wants a Source CD i made one, burned it two times and gave a copy to grisu. Noone requested one until now. For 2003 i think its made similar to that. -- bye Joerg Die dümmsten Hähne haben die dicksten Eier. pgpIwas80HDDx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is scilab really non-free?
Torsten Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May we discuss scilab's license, please? Scilab is currently assumed to be non-free because of one sentence(1) in its license text http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/license.txt : Any commercial use or circulation of the DERIVED SOFTWARE shall have been previously authorized by INRIA and ENPC. This is non-free of course. But I suppose that is only relevant if someone wants to distribute scilab with another license. No. This is relevant as soon as one wants do something commercial. As long as everyone sticks to scilab's original license there seems to be no problem with commercial use No? I read it so that you cant use it for commercial things without talking to inria/enpc. In other sentences they have non-commercial. They should switch to GPL or some other free license. :) Please keep the Cc: to the scilab developers in your replies. They call their software 'free'---see http://www.scilab.org/ . Its more Free for non-commercial use. -- bye Joerg #debian.de @ OFTC (01:38) michael hui, hier wird sonntags gechattet :) (01:39) maxx ja, aber nur zwischen 1:35 und 1:45, wenn der Sonntag der 1. im Monat ist :) (01:39) Sahneschnitter wasn hier los? activity :) pgpqbnJhzwD6e.pgp Description: PGP signature
