Glenn Maynard wrote:
So this is not a problem - again.
(I've had enough of Gabucino. Re-plonk.)
Please no flames. If you think I'm wrong in something, please point me to
the facts.
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
pgpPT9Lajhrv8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Gabucino wrote:
I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into
Debian.
Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them - the
purpose this list exists for.
The following issues' discussion has started so far:
- libavcodec's possible
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 19:26, Gabucino wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste
time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know
what exactly you wish for),
All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and
On Thursday 09 October 2003 14:24, Gabucino wrote:
Gabucino wrote:
I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion
into Debian.
Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them -
the purpose this list exists for.
The following issues'
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
fall under the spirit of the if you change it, don't call it foo
allowances.
We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.
Agreed.
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-10-01 13:29]:
I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally
would rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other
delegate to this committee.
Branden and I have spoken about this on IRC a few days ago, but I also
wanted to
Mike Hommey wrote:
You forgot the non-respect of the license of the libraries included in
mplayer (you know, the thing having been brought in another branch of this
thread).
I've checked the thread, but must have skimmed over it. Which is the library
in question?
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
Version,
If this
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the
On 2003-10-09, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
anonymous copyright holder.
So, use a pseudonym. This is only a problem if you live in a country
where it is illegal to use a pseudonym and you are very law-abiding
dissident and cannot bring
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
anonymous copyright
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 12:05 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Surely an entity is lose enough to include, say, a Chinese Dissident
Collective created on the spot.
I don't know if an entity has to be a legally-recognized entity (e.g.,
a corporation) or not --- hence the question mark
On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 02:20 US/Eastern, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
No, the list includes outline fonts. These outline fonts adopt
TYPEBANK font as a starting point of desigining.
In the US, the font itself (the idea of the shape of the characters,
their spacing, etc.) can't be
On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 20:53 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to
avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law.
With the number of software patents out there, if the goal is not to
break the law (instead of not
On 09 Oct 2003 17:49:36 +0200, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[Funny to see how some people here are more interested in finding
new issues before making any constructive proposal to fix the
existing ones
I have been reliably informed by the author of the license
that the
OK, this is my first foray into a sale-able product, based on `free'
software.
I am working with a company that is writing software that is to be sold
to their customers. I have specified Debian as the OS on which this all
runs; so, here I am on this list to learn the ropes of `free' software.
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
an entity recognized by the law.
Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
his actual name.
I've seen lots of files copyrighted by Monty or
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
So I wonder how it would be possible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) a tapoté :
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
an entity recognized by the law.
Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
his actual name.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
an entity recognized by the law.
Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
his actual name.
I've
On 2003-10-09 20:01:36 +0100 Michael D Schleif [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
...so this isn't a question about the licence of something that can be
in Debian? I
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:01:36PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
OK, this is my first foray into a sale-able product, based on `free'
software.
Congratulations.
I am working with a company that is writing software that is to be sold
to their customers. I have specified Debian as the OS on
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:01:55PM -0700, David Schleef wrote:
My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
Also, in order to manage problems and maintain SLA's, this software is
to be sold as an
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 01:09:49AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
...so this isn't a question about the licence of something that can be
in Debian? I suspect debian-legal is not the best list for this.
I think questions like this are reasonable for this list, as long as
people don't expect a response,
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003:10:09:17:01:55-0700] scribed:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:01:36PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
OK, this is my first foray into a sale-able product, based on `free'
software.
Congratulations.
I am working with a company that is writing software
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003:10:10:01:09:49+0100] scribed:
On 2003-10-09 20:01:36 +0100 Michael D Schleif [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
...so this isn't a
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
There are other things to watch out for, but you not modifying the
source of Debian packages, so it shouldn't matter.
Basically, since we are _not_ modifying source to any software, I had
always thought that this is a
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
I am not aware of any MySQL problems; can you give a pointer to
what you are concerned about?
Especially Section 3:
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html
As I understand it, this falls under linking with a GPL
29 matches
Mail list logo
