, it is usually a bad idea
to use ciphers that have not been thoroughly analyzed by
experienced cryptographers. I've never heard of Sapphire II or
Michael Paul Johnson and, although that doesn't mean it is not
secure, it is a bit worrying.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
it as
though it were a work to which any and all copyrights have
expired.
s/threat/treat/
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of this available at repo.or.cz,
via the mob branch:
http://repo.or.cz/mob.html
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usage.
What about modification and distribution?
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not
copyrightable in the United States, in the same way that a phone
book is not copyrightable.
I wouldn't presume to say anything about other countries, but
that's my guess about the U.S.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
looks them up in a book each time he needs them, then
that's just bad programming style, not a failure to make source
available.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Debian Bug Tracking System ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041123 20:55]:
* Removed documentation. Hope this makes everyone happy. Closes:
#281671, #281672, #143536.
No, it doesn't. I hope that you don't mind to much for speaking
that.
Take it up
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:
They've concluded that the GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG,
Yes.
and that everything in Debian (apparently modulo licenses
themselves) must satisfy the DFSG.
No. The latest amendment to the social contract
.README.html
which listed these email addresses for the author:
old: mcgill-vision!mouse
new: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some Google searches based on these email addresses might be useful.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
that is not a consensus here.
The BSD license is DFSG-free because the DFSG explicitly states
that it is free. The DFSG was written long before UC removed the
advertising clause, so this is the version of the BSD license
that the DFSG references.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
this additional phrase:
After December 31, 2001, only conditions 3-6 must be met
Conditions 3 and 4 refer to condition 7. Is this license meant
as some sort of sadistic logic puzzle for lawyers?
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...license for cryptlib...]
Except for proper names, this is identical to the license for
the libdb4.0 package, which is already in Debian main.
--
Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If evil.c is under the GPL, then it can be modified for any purpose
(including disabling its functionality).
For most purposes, yes, but not for *any* purpose. See section
2(c) of the GPL for details:
c) If the modified program normally reads
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Requiring the original source for documents is like requiring XCFs for
e.g. all the GNOME icons. I'm sure they're all stored as XCF's
originally, not PNGs. Yet no one complains, because PNG is an open
format, editable with free tools. But by the logic
I'm thinking about packaging the Java-based Open Card Framework
for use in accessing smart cards. It's freely available from
www.opencard.org. I'm using it with a Java-based iButton
(www.ibutton.org). The license is enclosed below, unchanged
except for formatting to fit within standard email
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone see a reason why it is not DFSG-free? The paragraph
that bothers me the most is the one at the end of clause 3:
Each Contributor agrees to provide condensed summaries of its
Contributions
Hello. I am interested in packaging the OpenCard Framework for
use with the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (www.debian.org).
Debian contains only free software, as defined by the Debian Free
Software Guidelines (DFSG), available from
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
I
David Martinez CSIC RedIRIS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The WB-ADPCM algorithm was developed by British Telecommunications plc.
Permission has been granted to use it for non-commercial research and
development projects. BT retain the intellectual property rights to this
algorithm.
This
Stephen C. North [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, if delivering custom-modified software includes sharing source code
with customers, the ATT Source Code Agreement further requires sharing
the patches with ATT. If you keep the patches private my reading of the
ATT license is that you can still
Adi Stav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then WHY did the FSF approve the QPL? Harmony was already on its
way...
Since when does the FSF approve of the QPL? The GNU webpage at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
says the following:
The Qt Public License (QPL).
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I recall a precedent here in the US where a document was not infected by the
copyright on the fonts used therein. It seemed to say that so long as you've
lawfully aquired a font, you're free to use it when typesetting any
documents you like. You might
Erich Forler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the =93Minor=94 clause a violation of the GPL?
Some commentators have suggested that by requiring persons to certify
that they are not a minor, or to have a parent or legal guardian agree
to the terms to the GPL on their behalf, Corel has changed
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Caspian writes:
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
This trend concerns me, too, but if you want to stop them, you will need
to show why what they are doing is not only nasty but also illegal.
Remember that the DFSG
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Debian GNU/Linux distribution (and the GPL) on which Corel
Linux is based has no such requirements (that the end user be 18
years of age). Therefore Corel is itself BREAKING the license
that allows them to modidy and redistribute GPLed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
It's time for us to bring suit against Corel for this can't download unless
you're 18 stuff. That's not in our license and they know it. I've tried to
help them several times, and they continue to be 100% clueless. I think at
this point they are not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
When I first looked at that license, I didn't see the Donald Knuth and
assumed that license was written by some completely clue-less person.
It's extremely ambiguous in that the changes are only permissible does
not actually grant any rights - it just
Currently, lclint has a non-free license listed in the package,
and it is in the non-free section. However, as reported in
Bug#43590, it is actually under the GNU GPL, as downloaded from
http://www.sds.lcs.mit.edu/lclint/
Are you planning to fix this and upload into main for potato? I
Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't notice the new license because they didn't bump the version number
they only exchanged the license file in the distribution.
I wondered about that. It seemed a little weird to me too and I
wasn't sure if maybe I'd just misread the license the
Gerhard Poul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this is the last part of the lpc man page which is contained in
debian-stable.=20
Why wasn't this on debian-legal? I'm moving it there.
[...snip...]
LPRng is distributed under the GNU software license for
non-commercial use, the
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate languag=
e?
No, file formats are not copyrightable,
[Note: I'm moving this to the debian-legal list.]
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am pretty sure that SSH was never free software. Could you show me
the license on the version that they started with?
I don't know what version they started with. However, the COPYING
file
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sep 09, Itai Zukerman wrote:
I've come across the following in one file of an otherwise GPL'ed set
of code:
/* simple password generator by XXX
* copyright 1991, all rights reserved.
* You can use this code as long as
Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
Frankly, I don't understand the full effects of this clause of the
license. Other than that, it looks like a pretty good license to me,
and unless I missed something as I was skimming through it, it's also
DFSG compliant.
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
code ?
Yes.
Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ?
Definitely not.
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...former license was GPL...]
Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license,
which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the
version number.
Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
Andrea Fanfani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi i'm working on the package of tkxanim.=20
Tkxanim is a gpl front-end to the program xanim that is non-free.
How does it interface to xanim? If it interfaces other than through
some sort of command-line interface, you may need to get a license
Andrea Fanfani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is tkxanim of any use without xanim? If so, then put it in main with
suggests; otherwise, put it in contrib with depends.
there is not an use for a front-end without the program but maybe
you want only see how is his lookfeel without
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And if someone writes a single-purpose GUI shell for the networking
code in a certain proprietary desktop OS (to pick a completly random
name, suppose the fancy GUI shell was called 'Netscape'), it
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Microsoft C library source is licensed for incorporation into
applications, but Microsoft OSes are not.
Before you make your final assertion of this datum, can you provide us with
a copy of the MS
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes Title 17:
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in
Juergen A. Erhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a clause you seem to have overlooked, that I think makes it
non-free (sorry):
3. A reasonable fee may be charged to copy this software. Any fee
may be charged to support this software. This software may be
Remco Blaakmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Kenshi Muto wrote:
License: == from README ==
Author: Kazuhiko Shutoh
Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute without charge this
software, documentation, images, etc. is
Andrew Wansink [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it just so happens that I have permission from abisource, I
have had it all along actually. Nobody ever asked me whether
abisource knew or not, they just started up with their know-nothing,
know-it-all bullshit opinions which I
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
attached is a copy of IBM PUBLIC LICENSE, extracted from the just
released Data Explorer 4.0 source. I don't know if this is the same as
Jike's license, but I catched my eye that Freshmeat lists this thing as
OpenSource. I have
Matt.Wilkie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license I'd like should:
- be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
- have freedom to modify and change and combine with other data
- keep original sources of data copyright notices in all distributions
Comments below refer to the DFSG at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.
Rene Mayrhofer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
**
THIS SOFTWARE CONTAINS CONCEPTS AND TECHNIQUES THAT ARE PATENT PENDING
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...license omitted...]
Now what I want to know is:
a) Can I just replace this file with the GPL (obviously the copyrights
in the files will remain intact and all work will be attributed to the
original authors)?
It says you can, but I
[Note: I am moving this to debian-legal, where it belongs.]
Dave Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At this point I'm going to reiterate my concern about linking Qt to
the GPL'd boot floppies code. Don't do it, it's a violation of
license as far as I can tell.
Bottom line is
Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
COPYRIGHT
This software adheres to the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
You can re-use portions of this software and create a modified
version of the software only if the resultant work also adheres to
GPL.
COST
The
The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at
http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
Still not acceptable:
9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented
by, the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of
infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to Ben Pfaff:
Maybe you think that the last clause in that paragraph, ``If Apple
suspends Your rights... nothing in this License shall be construed to
restrict You... from replacing the Affected Original Code...'', means
Fredrick Paul Eisele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Jeff Noxon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although I certainly don't mind the suggestion of Corel getting one
(many?) developer accounts, I'm not certain I like the idea of voting
rights or access
Jens Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While doing this I stumbled over this in the source:
/* NIST Secure Hash Algorithm */
/* heavily modified by Uwe Hollerbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] edu */
/* from Peter C. Gutmann's implementation as found in */
/* Applied Cryptography by Bruce
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CNRI has released the 0.6 version of Grail with a new license; it
appears to be DFSG-free (or at least that appears to be their intent,
since they have no plans to develop it further).
It looks DFSG-free to me.
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to Joseph Carter:
I _DO NOT_ like liars and that is exactly what you people at OSI are
doing, lying to me.
Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
beyond your ability to believe, eh?
I've never
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now that GNU Privacy Guard is available to do everything PGP does under a
free license, is tehre any reason for the developers keys to be in contrib
instead of main? Is there something here I'm missing?
Yes:
2.1.3. The contrib section
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without
his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would
rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not
competent to make the
J.H.M. Dassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I need is a nicely phrased despite what the GPL requires, it's OK to
link this code against Qt and redistribute the resulting binaries statement
- can someone here provide one?
I would put the following license on each file in the program.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It also looks like it could have to go into non-us. Do the US
export restrictions cover software that is merely able to verify
cryptographic signatures?
Not AFAIK. md5sum, for instance, is in main.
J.H.M. Dassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl.html
Apple is claiming that this is an Open Source license. However, it is
not:
1. It has a termination clause similar to the IBM Secure Mailer
license. (I'm not sure that this is actually an Open
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Ristuccia writes:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014005,00.html
If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send Sun Microsystems a
cease-and-desist before we lose it.
I see no evidence of infringement of the Open
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I see that as a comparison to open source, not a claim that
their Community Source license is an open source license.
This to me sounds like someone going on and on about the features and
benefits of their alternate tone-based
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Starner wrote:
-8=
LPRng is distributed under the GNU software license for
non-commercial use, the Artistic License for limited com=AD
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no problem with the payment details. Indeed the artistic and GPL
make the same restriction. However, this doesn't give permission to
modify. Does some other file give this permission?
Yes, the complete license was not quoted.
--
...In
I am working on packaging nqc, the Not Quite C compiler for the Lego
Mindstorms set. The files in nqc are under the following license:
/*
* The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License
* Version 1.0 (the License); you may not use this file except in
* compliance with
Kevin Forge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to be a
'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
the system like that. The 'system library' idea thus fails for
Robert Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the event an intellectual property claim is made or appears likely
to be made with respect to the Software, you agree to permit IBM to
enable you to continue to use the Software, or to modify it, or replace
it with software that is at least
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Restrictions on Alteration. You may not rename, edit or create any
derivative works from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, other than subsetting
when embedding them in documents.
This automatically makes it not DFSG free since we cannot alter
69 matches
Mail list logo
