On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:11:45AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> However, the "strict" interpretation would imply that the GPL is not fair (in
> the sense of compaints about the Novell - Microsoft contract), because I can
> distribute Bacula binaries because no where on any of the project sites d
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs
> > free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how
> > to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007, Christian Pinedo Zamalloa wrote:
> 1. Should I include *all* the authors listed in copyrights
> statements of all files of chessdb in debian/copyright? The main
> contributor are Shane (scid) and Krikby (chessdb) but other minor
> contributors are listed through all the source
Le vendredi 08 juin 2007 à 20:50 +0200, Christian Pinedo Zamalloa a
écrit :
> 1. Should I include *all* the authors listed in copyrights statements of
> all files of chessdb in debian/copyright? The main contributor are Shane
> (scid) and Krikby (chessdb) but other minor contributors are listed
> t
hello all,
I'm trying to package my first package for debian and I'm having several
doubts about legal issues. I'm trying to package chessdb a fork of scid
chess database. The questions are the next:
1. Should I include *all* the authors listed in copyrights statements of
all files of chessdb in
On Friday 08 June 2007 16:56, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:57:22PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > However, I have now removed *all* modifications, so that the current
Bacula
> > code as of a few hours ago has no modifications to GPL v2. I am attaching
a
> > copy of the curr
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:57:22PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> However, I have now removed *all* modifications, so that the current Bacula
> code as of a few hours ago has no modifications to GPL v2. I am attaching a
> copy of the current LICENSE file as it is at this moment in the SVN
I'm not
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> > > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
> >
> > This is England calling.
>
> Would the FSF have to sue under US
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the problem is that parts of Bacula's code are copyrighted by third
> parties [...]
Why isn't that in the copyright file, JOOI?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeof
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] FSFE does not believe that an exception clause to
> the GPL is necessary to legally link to OpenSSL in the manner that
> Bacula is (dynamic linking).
I'm always open to learning more about this fiddly problem.
FSFE's reasoning for this seems to be:
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have seen various FSF FAQs over the years that have claimed that
> > distributing binaries linked against OpenSSL is ok, but these FAQs
> > have been mute on the matter of distribution as part of an
On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Kern,
>
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Well, the above is total Greek to me. However, I must say that there is
> > absolutely no reason why Bacula would every accompany OpenSSL in any sense
> > of the t
12 matches
Mail list logo
