Package: esniper
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.3
[Cc:d to debian-legal]
Hi,
It's not obvious it is legal to distribute this software at all
(probably it either is fit for main or unfit for non-free too). I
suggest a review on debian-legal, since I'm not well versed in (at
least
severity 420686 normal
thanks
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Sami Liedes wrote:
2.2.3 says Packages must be placed in _non-free_ if they are not
compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal
issues that make their distribution problematic. (I expected to find
something saying
Hi Sami!
You wrote:
It's not obvious it is legal to distribute this software at all
(probably it either is fit for main or unfit for non-free too). I
suggest a review on debian-legal, since I'm not well versed in (at
least this area of) law. I found nothing about this in debian-legal
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:38:34AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law
and Debian is not bound to it.
Well, I don't know the law too well, that's why I asked you (and if
you feel it's legal, I'm happy about that). But some kind of
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:55:15AM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
I'd say it's rather obvious that there is a contract between the
seller and eBay, but that's just my view) is no legal use for this
program.
Sorry, I meant the bidder and eBay. But now that's not as evident any
more, I think.
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
because they do not have those same
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered free. It says that
the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
free.
The context of that statement is the GPL as
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:30 +0200, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
Easy. DFSG §3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
neither
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 Sami Liedes wrote:
Well, I don't know the law too well, that's why I asked you (and if
you feel it's legal, I'm happy about that). But some kind of
contributory infringement came to my mind, ...
I'm not a lawyer either, but if we start talking about contributory
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
corresponding in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
What software is this for?
I think the last sentence is necessary if it clarifies the meaning
of corresponding.
(2) In the last
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 10:17:22AM +0100, Dima Barsky wrote:
I'm not a lawyer either, but if we start talking about contributory
infringement, shouldn't we remove all P2P clients from Debian as well?
There is a much stronger case for contributory infringement there..
I'm not convinced.
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:13 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely
Sami Liedes wrote:
If (and that's a big if) that argumentation is valid, indeed there is
no legal use for the software, and I think that probably would weigh
quite a bit in court. Though I admit I don't even know if there's such
a thing as contributory infringement of a contract, it sounds
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Considering the number of sniping software packages out there
eBay doesn't seem to be very interested in pursuing these
packages.
Indeed, they could've stopped sniping quite easily, if they wanted to.
Although I'm not sure if it could be considered a valid legal
Hello Steve and *,
Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not*
permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is
suboptimal, but it's still not something that we *permit*. (Perhaps what
you're
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:43:26PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not*
permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is
suboptimal, but it's still not
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
corresponding in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
What software is this for?
I think the last sentence is necessary if it clarifies the meaning
MJ Ray wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
corresponding in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
What software is this for?
This is an experimental license I have been playing around with. See
Hello *,
Am 2007-04-24 08:38:34, schrieb Bas Zoetekouw:
How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law
and Debian is not bound to it.
You can get the specification of the eBay-API from the Website for free
and can create FREELY a lib which allo you to access the eBay
Walter Landry wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) In the last sentence, does the phrase must reflect all
modifications mean that all past, present, and future
modifications must also be included?
I think that including past modifications
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is an experimental license I have been playing around with. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg3.html
Again, I exhort you: either choose an existing, well-understood free
license for your software, or (as a distant second)
Ben Finney wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is an experimental license I have been playing around with. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg3.html
Again, I exhort you: either choose an existing, well-understood free
license for your software, or
22 matches
Mail list logo
