On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:45:18PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 05:21:59PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:49:07PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > > The julia maintainers have proposed to libgit2 upstream to suppor
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:49:07PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:34:16PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:36:58PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > > I am suggesting to provide two variants of libgit2, without and with
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:36:58PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:26:46PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Unfortunately, libgit2 also doesn't seem to support any TLS library
> > other than OpenSSL. That's a serious problem for GPLed software, and
> &g
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:38:46PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > Dear Debian legal team,
> >
> > The next release of julia will use libgit2 (Cc'ed recent maintainers)
> > to retrieve pac
direct dependencies on OpenSSL. So, packages licensed
under GPLv2 with no license exceptions can link to libgit2 in Debian.
- Josh Triplett
with Andrew Donnellan's assessments.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
libfoo).
However, I think a nice email to the author can clear it all up anyway
- your Python bindings would simply drive more sales of the commercial
license anyway.
Agreed.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
of a previously-granted GPL in this scenario.
Should I file a bug report against the bootcd package to ask for a
clarification?
The license statement could certainly use clarification, but it doesn't
necessarily need clarification to become free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
:)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. That said, you might
consider including the English version from the author's webpage in
debian/copyright in addition to the Japanese version, appropriately
identified.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-incompatible libraries, you
definitely need such an exception, on all the GPLed code in Bacula;
Debian doesn't require this, the GPL itself does.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
that I can
do to help speed that process (which is infinetly more interesting to
me than dealing with EULAs) along.
Fully seconded; I would gladly help with this as well.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
from doing it, once.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Tom Marble wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom Marble wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
+ SECTION 2(c)
There have been a series of speculations about this, despite the
clarifications of FAQ #8. The term alternate technologies refers
to projects
without the exception. This doesn't
make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute
Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:18:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Note that the license says ... is distributed *with* your Operating
System, and not is part of. I don't know where you read the part of
bit? Anyway, we definitely do distribute non-free *with* our OS, it's
on the fact that the GPL requires a
conspicuous and appropriate notice as to the GPL status of the work; and
furthermore, that any distributor would need to either include the full
source to the manual or an offer for such.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
a potentially confusing third license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
an official and/or endorsed
manual in exchange for whatever auxiliary licensing terms you want.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
(in other words,
upstream), not the preferred form of those who would like to make
modifications (in other words, downstream).
In any case, I'd sooner edit a Word document (using OO.o, Abiword, or
similar) than the HTML that Word outputs.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
declarations. It may well *intend* to grant the
right to distribute (unmodified or with another filename) and the right
to all possible modifications, but it doesn't appear to actually do so.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, and put the Free client and server in main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
couldn't legally distribute them.
I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
far as the non-free archive.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
Craig Southeren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
for our mirror operators.
I don't see why
constrains
development practices only slightly less.
I think any mirror operator, CD distributor, system distributor, or
other distributor of Debian could face a lawsuit if Debian's systems go
down or Debian stops distributing source falls pretty clearly on the
non-free side.
- Josh Triplett
must occur as part of a larger
work of some kind, including potentially an aggregate with unrelated
programs, such as the Debian distribution? The latter follows the
letter of the DFSG; the former places a stronger requirement that I
don't believe the DFSG permits.
- Josh Triplett
According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
than in the recommended license
notice, an individual licensing their software cannot remove the or
later in any way without creating an incompatibility with the LGPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, like GNU software
and no invariant sections. Must I really throw this document
out of Debian (BTS 335403)?
Yes. You could package it separately in non-free, however.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
use this; M-x yow and M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead draw
Zippy quotes from this file. That doesn't necessarily change the
freeness status of it (though the quotes may still fall under fair use
or similar), but it probably changes it to [NON-FREE] at least.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
, and
require a GR if the project wants to say Regardless of any license
reasoning or possible issues, this license shall be considered free
under these circumstances, which is exactly what the GR did.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
of
distribution to not violate the license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
restricted by copyright
is restricted.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
clauses in the GFDL are free; the GR just *defined*
the GFDL *as a whole* to be free. It would thus not contradict the GR
at all if we continued to interpret any identical clause in another
license as non-free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-free without unmodifiable sections; the individual
clauses can and should still be considered non-free in any other
context, and may still render works non-distributable which would make
the question of defined DFSG-freeness irrelevant.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
it is public
domain
Word lists can be copyrightable if the selection of the words involved
actual creativity rather than an exhaustive list; that list certainly
seems to qualify.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/MOTIVATION contains:
[reprinted with permission of the author
from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not
necessarily include authorization to modify.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
voted it below Further Discussion for it to
have failed, which doesn't seem at all unlikely in the face of the above
two points.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
not what I say philosophy
promoted
by the recent GR may mean that this should not be considered unmodifiable,
however.
I'm not sure.
See above, and also note that the GR specifically proscribed
unmodifiable material.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
between various developers.
To use the mathematical hyperbole: just because the project has
legislated pi=3.14 doesn't mean we should start arguing e=2.72 and
sqrt(2)=1.41 for them.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
software anyway.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
: release c=non-free
Pin-Priority: -1
Package: autoconf-doc
Pin: release c=non-free
Pin-Priority: 500
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
.
Sounds quite clearly like a request to me, not a requirement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
library.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
access to the source.
Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source (at
up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could easily
be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:10:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
(Non-Source
Mark Rafn wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
(Non-Source Distribution) as though you had
Distribution) as though you had distributed the work to
those users in the form of Object Code.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Thanks, Josh. This was a pretty cogent and helpful explication.
Thank you. :)
quote who=Josh Triplett date=Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:02:20PM -0800
There are two separate, mostly-independent issues with the AGPL:
1) The issue of whether this type of clause is OK at all
, it probably would
have been declared non-free a long time ago.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
using such a clause on top
of the GPL version 3.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
David M.Besonen wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:51:25 -0800, Josh Triplett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL version 2 does not. The GPL version 3 does not directly, but it
permits licensors to add such a condition without being incompatible
with the GPL version 3.
could you point me
be incompatible. But for upstream projects that use
earlier versions of by or by-sa, there should be a clear upgrade path.
This seems like one case where it is rather unfortunate that CC didn't
standardize on an or any later version model.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
if this clause was taken as a legal definition in
those cases as well, preventing the use of GPLed software for that
purpose. Thus, the above indication of scope might actually be
necessary, with a sufficiently narrow description of DMCA-like laws.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Thanks for saving lost soul.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is
granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other
words, for any purpose and without fee
and without fee is granted is equivalent to
for any purposes is granted without fee. A quick google over the
debian-legal archives shows that this issue has been discussed and
resolved as early as 1999, and that it nevertheless comes up numerous
times after that.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
the license to be open; they
simply have the standard problem of being unable to get permission from
all contributors. Thus, the only way to relicense is to rewrite.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
they are on their turn automatically
generated from something else...).
One useful point here is that there exist Free renderers for POVRay
files, such as KPovModeler. I don't know to what extent they implement
the features of POVRay.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
no functionality without povray, I agree that it should be in
contrib; if it can be useful without povray, the current situation is fine.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
it as a replacement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
don't know of
any well-known DFSG-free licenses (used on more than one project) which
include a patch clause.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
changes in individual source files.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-violating features, because it ensures that someone can get
the source code, find the spyware feature, and publish an improved
version of the software which does not have the feature. Users can
then switch to that version if they don't want their personal
information to be reported.
- Josh Triplett
on the program's copyright notice.
So in summary it would probably be better to leave the license untranslated,
right?
Yes. Furthermore, given that the license notice should not be
translated, I would suggest that the use of gettext on the license
notice strings is a bug.
- Josh Triplett
Marco Franzen wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Mickael Profeta wrote:
If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself
^^^
licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
dated June 1991 (GPL v2) or compatible, then you may use LibpreludeDB
license, then you may use Libprelude under the
^
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the tool they
use to generate the HTML from the comments. Preferably without bringing
up the legal issue, since this is also a simple technical issue.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. It would also help to make it clear that the
information in LICENSE.README is phrased simply as a description of the
effect the GPL already has, rather than as a separate condition imposed
in addition to the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
it, you will have to send an
email or a letter to them.
Really? Isn't 'request' the phrase often recommended on -legal for
such things? (though I understand that the license isn't the right
place).
Yes. As phrased, it sounds like a non-binding request to notify them,
not a demand.
- Josh
to apply to almost any modified version. As for the rest
of it, restrictions on what you can connect to a particular service
should be in the terms of use for that service, not in a software license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
with your assessment; this license appears to be DFSG-free.
I include the text of the license below.
Full quote of license text retained for context.
- Josh Triplett
--
EPICS Open License Terms
The following is the text of the EPICS Open
).
in the copyright file in order to be put in main debian section, right ?
Not necessary; the license you posted is compatible with the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the libraries present in order to build pymedia, then you could
ship pymedia with those features enabled such that any user with the
appropriate packages installed would have that functionality. The same
thing is done by packages which want libdvdcss.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
under the BSD
license; alternatively, you could remove the copyright notice *from the
boot messages* (since it is not the copyright notice which is governing
the work).
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:21:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
- All rights reserved would imply that the software is not licensed at
all,
which isn't true. The answers I got from #debian-devel indicate it's
perfectly legal to remove this message for clarification
the functionality that application needs.
If that doesn't work, you could also look into Free replacements for the
software itself.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
to the libdb4.2 package, already in main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
of the NetBSD port telling
them the software is available under a Free Software license (as they
currently have a note about the non-commercial-use restriction).
This is an astounding success; thank you.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
license for wordlists (that keeps the list
non-proprietary)? Is there a suited license
for an explainatory dictionary?
See above; the GPL should work just fine for a wordlist and for a
dictionary.
Hope this helps,
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Mandelberg
P.S. debian-legal: please CC me on all replies as I'm not subscribed.
I suggest using the wording suggested by Branden Robinson in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html ; the part
starting with I refuse to assert copyright.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
to the filename, rather than just
speaking in general about clear and conspicuous notices or similar;
I'm not sure if that's non-free or not though.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
was that it does retroactively rescind the clause for all software
copyrighted by UC Berkeley, including older versions. However, it
certainly can't affect software copyrighted by others; for such
software, you need to get permission from the copyright holders.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
:)
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
Indeed, I agree that it's
discussions of the IBM Public License,
and the clear consensus was that forcing the licensor to waive their
right to a jury trial is definitely non-free. Thanks for catching that one.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/gpl.html works for the
GPL, though in the ideal case you should include a copy of the GPL with
the work.
Other than that, it looks fine.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ranting, which seems to be a far-too-common opinion :( ).
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
would stay in
main
* latex2html is released under the GPL and moved to main.
The author has already said he would do this with the next version, but
that next version may be a long time off; the best solution would be a
permission statement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
convinced otherwise.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
and the DFSG, or on anyone who doesn't support
reading the DFSG as a checklist. Perhaps it's a milestone: we've become
a sufficiently well-established forum to have picked up regular trolls.
:) Please don't let a few people spoil your outlook on debian-legal as
a whole.
- Josh Triplett
a compiled binary does; if it
does, we have a problem. Undocumented code, on the other hand, while
rather annoying, is not an issue of freedom.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, but does not in this case. This
would imply that GDAL would have to go into contrib, since this library
is non-free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
is this different from
your case?
Hold on a second. You seem to be arguing against the established
interpretation of the GPL here: at least according to the FSF, you may
not distribute the GPL-incompatible Foo compiled against GNU readline,
linked or not.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
and object
code corresponds to typeset form, and add an exception to any clauses
you don't care about. However, I don't think that's a good idea, and I
don't think people will be confused by a GPLed document.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
get copyrights for works they author.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
on several occasions that the statement he has
made regarding the user/kernel boundary and the GPL was simply a
clarification regarding derived works: a program written to standard
UNIX interfaces is clearly not a derivative of Linux, HURD, or any other
particular UNIX system.
- Josh Triplett
, there are no
actions which may only be performed by the original copyright holder;
*everyone* could take the code proprietary. This license seems
obnoxious, but not non-free.
Is there some other scenario (or facet of these scenarios) that you had
in mind?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modifications and derived works had to be distributed
, there are no
actions which may only be performed by the original copyright holder;
*everyone* could take the code proprietary. This license seems
obnoxious, but not non-free.
Is there some other scenario (or facet of these scenarios) that you had
in mind?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
1 - 100 of 438 matches
Mail list logo
