Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The term under your direct control typically does not refer to
physical access or knowledge of the root
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 04 May 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
A few packages contain software (well, everything's software these
days) which is cryptographically protected against modification.
This seems to violate DFSG §3.
Uh, if you're refering to the PGP keys and
Hi,
[[ Please Cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed ]]
I'm looking at packaging up elfsign, see WNPP #247427.
This is licensed under the Artistic license, however uses OpenSSL's engine.h
to build. Does this present any issues?
regards
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Arrangement with a sould mate
Make your profile:
http://thesitefordating.com/web/?oc=53034054
The dating web site
created by women
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as
complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license
their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully
understand. I (and, in my opinion, any
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It also
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
They might do in some jurisdictions, but I would guess that in most
they don't. The public key is
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
My understanding is that copyright laws speak about original works
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly
questionable as to whether
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:58:35PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
worded. It is a terrible
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL is actually a rather interesting case here, since it *does*
require the preservation of credits, and in a way that I believe
Debian finds acceptably free.
2c of the GPL is actually somewhat controversial. I don't know whether
anyone actually
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
| of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
| distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
| above, provided that you also meet all of these
Greetings! Is the following DFSG free?
Take care,
--
Camm Maguire[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. -- Baha'u'llah
Le Tue, May 04, 2004, Ã 01:18:35PM -0600, Burnes, James a écrit:
4. How about this for a self-referential solution to the problem. In
ReiserV4, you could view the ReiserV4 credits by simply looking at the
credits meta properties in reiser4.o or any other software. Sounds like
a good idea
On 2004-05-05 14:41:23 +0100 Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings! Is the following DFSG free?
No, it forces disclosure upstream. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00011.html
I am researching free software licences written for UK law at the
Greetings!
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-05-05 14:41:23 +0100 Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings! Is the following DFSG free?
No, it forces disclosure upstream. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00011.html
OK, thanks!
I am
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind that it is extremely unlikely was only part of the
argument. There is also that we are only liable to the extent that
our distribution is involved in the case. Further, we can choose to
defend the
Hello,
I've been playing with oggplayer recently and I've found moosic taht is
written in python. I've tried to see what's in it and I inteded to play
with it.
But, the moosic python module appeared to be obfuscated. It seems to be
the choice of upstream since the makefile in the original tgz
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind that it is extremely unlikely was only part of the
argument. There is also that we are only liable to the extent that
our distribution is involved in the case.
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:00:50PM -0600, doug jensen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you
some time for
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 19:40, Nicolas Ãvrard wrote:
Hello,
I've been playing with oggplayer recently and I've found moosic taht is
written in python. I've tried to see what's in it and I inteded to play
with it.
But, the moosic python module appeared to be obfuscated.
Moosic is not
Scripsit Nicolas =?iso-8859-15?Q?=C9vrard?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So I was wondering, since this is problem is only with the binary
package should I file a bug against moosic stating that obfuscating is
an error or does it seems an acceptable policy to your eyes ?
If the source package contains
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly
questionable as to whether
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First and foremost: Hans, this is your project. Someone willing to
replace entire APIs with things that feel like files is obviously not
afraid of creating something new. So at the end of the day, it
shouldn't matter too much that it's in Debian
24 matches
Mail list logo
