-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
|
| grep -rl THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE */copyright
| libqt3c102-mt/copyright
| libqt3-headers/copyright
| libqt3-mt-dev/copyright
| qt3-designer/copyright
| qt3-dev-tools/copyright
| qt3-doc/copyright
|
Not sure about the rest, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ok, more digging around for a useful emulation related program that's
unencumbered by non-free crap. I think I found one called ucon64[0],
self-billed as the 'Swiss Army Knife of emulation utilities'. I've actually
been using it for a while and for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| There is no need to reference a license in a source file for it to be valid.
| Source code is copyrighted with or without referencing a license in the files
| itself. Apart from that, the old license is part of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| Huh? The docs and the web page do *clearly* state that this is not the case.
| The web page for example says:
|
| Until today, I have rewritten large parts of the compiler, all of the
| library, completely replaced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
|
| Correction: You don't want to understand that. It can be easily seen from the
| fact that you accused me of intentional muddling with licenses before even
| looking at the source code, that it is not your intention to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
|
| If upstream is still active, please ask him about that. There might be a
| reason for the license still being there; if not, it'd be best if he
| removed it.
|
|
I just sent this upstream:
| On your page you have the
Evan Prodromou wrote:
I think that it's a mistake to say that an interpreter or emulator
depends on the data blobs it interprets, in the Debian sense of
dependence.
That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
important) somewhere disagrees, or it wouldn't have
license.
Anyway, here's the verbatim copyright file I'd be using for the package.
What worries me is the first clause of the cc65 license. What qualifies as a
'nominal fee'?
--- begin paste ---
This package was debianized by Benjamin Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:28:41 -0700
was debianized by Benjamin Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:28:41 -0700.
It was downloaded from http://www.cc65.org/
Upstream Author: Ullrich von Bassewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Portions Copyright 1989 John R Dunning
Portions Copyright 1998-2003 Ullrich von Bassewitz
From www.cc65.org
Ok, just to see, I did a diff on any files that looked like they might have
been derived from the other... none of them matched a SINGLE LINE OF CODE,
except for silly things like opening/closing braces and a couple of #include
lines, and a comment or two. So I think that the source archive I
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Would one ROM cut it, then? I am working to determine if one ROM is
available under a DFSG-free license right now. I don't have much to
report yet except thanks to those who have supplied information to help
me track down the copyright holder. I should know
Dan Korostelev wrote:
Hello.
Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
looks like it doesn't require any non-free stuff at all. There's also
free (as in freedom) roms for GBA in the net. So what's
Evan Prodromou wrote:
I guess I'm just not sure I buy that an emulator is materially different
from a script interpreter, DFSG-wise.
Ok, tack on 'console', and the fact that 99.9% of console 'programs' (ROMs)
out there are extremely undistributable, as opposed to something like a
Macintosh
was debianized by Benjamin Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:22:43 -0700.
It was downloaded from http://sourceforge.net/projects/gens/
Upstream Authors: Stephane Dallongeville (Win32 Version) ([EMAIL
PROTECTED])
Stephane Akhoun (SDL Version) ([EMAIL PROTECTED
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
I guess I'm missing
Humberto Massa wrote:
Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
package it this way (/vide/ all the flam^W healthy discussions about
the
Humberto Massa wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even the GPL).
As to mpg123, what about mpg321 ??
I should also have
Andrew Suffield wrote:
No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a
derivative work of starscream.
Not even something like what I mentioned in my other message? Seperating
the source packages wouldn't help either?
m68k is not a difficult chip to emulate, and there
Andrew Suffield wrote:
A quick search of the Packages file reveals basilisk2, an emulator for
m68k macs. I know there are more m68k emulators out there, which
haven't been packaged.
Looking at Basalisk it says that it uses UAE's emu core for m68k...
sounds like it's worth looking into, but
Josh Triplett wrote:
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
A search for the author's name turns up http://www.neillcorlett.com/ ,
which has a page http://www.neillcorlett.com/star/ about Starscream.
There is an email address
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Searching for Starscream somehow managed to miss that page. I'll check
it out.
Eh, it's the same thing from before. Different addy, but just about the
same content. I'm going to look into replacing the m68k core. Probably
from UAE, since that's a pretty tested
Sebastian Ley wrote:
Hello legal wizards,
I need some advice about a license, my legal-english is not enough to
determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
is distributable in non-free.
The license can be found here:
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2
I was giving a little thought to a library I might write, and was
thinking of a few things that would concern me about its use. I whipped
up a quick license governing its use. I'm thinking that it's still
DSFG-free because it allows a choice, one of which is the GPL, but I
thought I should run
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
**The library itself would be GPL.**
I don't like your license, but I think you're right... but... You tried
to specify the license of programs linking to (using?) your library...
but forgot to permit free (re
Henning Makholm wrote:
Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line!
Dunno why it did that, I just attached em at the end... strange.
There's a piece of software called acc I'd like to package up and
possibly include in Debian (along with some other tools that complement
it, and are under seperate, DSFG-free licenses, so they're not an
issue), but the included licenses are problematic at best. I've attached
them below. The
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is why I became interested in understanding licenses to begin with:
so I can make reasonable evaluations of them before spending time coding.
It doesn't look like either of the two licenses are redistributable, even
in non-free. Neither gives permission to
27 matches
Mail list logo
