On 11/09/21 at 21:47 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> :
> > (1) the wording almost requires citation
>
> I take this as you agree that it does not require citation.
[...]
> > With a wrong eye, one could even see i
On 03/09/21 at 08:04 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> >
> > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU
> > parallel
> > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> > The status quo is likely to mke
On 06/09/21 at 20:56 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Lechner
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > >
> > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU
> > > parallel
> > > would allow removal, but this would
Hi,
When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
- Lucas
signature.asc
Hi FTP masters,
Now that the archive is frozen, could you please take some time to
review this discussion?
Thanks,
Lucas
On 09/10/14 at 13:46 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
On 08/10/14 at 12:17 +0200, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
W dniu 21.08.2014 o 20:08, Lucas Nussbaum pisze:
Hi
Hi,
On 08/10/14 at 12:17 +0200, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
W dniu 21.08.2014 o 20:08, Lucas Nussbaum pisze:
Hi,
First, thanks a lot to Ian for working on this draft, which (I think)
provides a nice summary of the situation around the PHP license.
[snip]
That's indeed a very good
Hi,
First, thanks a lot to Ian for working on this draft, which (I think)
provides a nice summary of the situation around the PHP license.
On 21/08/14 at 19:49 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (2014-08-21):
Draft question for SFLC:
(there are no
Hi Ian,
Thanks for bringing this up.
On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
There has been an ongoing and wholly unproductive conversation on
-legal about some difficulties with the PHP licence.
Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ?
Do we have a
Hi there,
On 10/03/14 at 14:57 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Having read your report, even if someone decided to package it, I
wouldn't advise to include it in the archive without speaking
beforehand with lawyers that could advice us on the possible risks.
I'm not familiar enought with the
On 03/03/14 at 19:24 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Hi,
This was quite predictable to happen sometime. Games are a lot about
telling stories, and stories can come in very different flavours. As
we are planning to maybe getting a game into Debian, that has explicit
erotic or sexual contents -I
On 16/08/13 at 10:08 +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
Last time this came up, several folks suggested that these files are
not copyrightable. I happen to agree (IANAL). Perhaps we should employ
our SFLC lawyers to find this out with more certainty. You might want
to contact them, the DPL can help
(Please keep debian-ruby@ Cced)
Hi,
In the upcoming Ruby release, there will be a license change from
GPLv2||Ruby to BSD||Ruby. Since the situation is rather complex, and
involves linking with both readline and openssl, I'd like to check that
our interpretation is correct.
1. Relevant copyright
at
runtime, isn't it? So with such an application, we again don't ship
code that is linked to both libreadline and openssl.
Yes, everything happens at runtime (no bytecode, etc).
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr
On 19/03/10 at 20:59 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We will do our best to get an exception before the release.
Erm. See http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2982 for the upstream
bug. An upstream developer replied saying:
When you want to link openssl, you use Ruby's.
When you want to link
.
Questions:
1/ Can we ship those files?
2/ Can we ship those files in the same binary package?
3/ Can we distribute a ruby application that require (that's the ruby
keyword for loading libraries) both readline and openssl?
Thanks,
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas
/msg00066.html
The basic requirements are: (AFAIK)
- not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document
- suitable for documents
- require changing title/authorship upon changes (see above)
Could you recommend one?
Thank you,
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
license named GPL would suit ? Like
the Grr Pfff Lol License ?
2) Which version of GPL should be used ? Any ? The current version ? The
current version or any later ? This could cause problems when
integrating CeCILLed software into GPLed apps.
What do you think of this ?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.pdf
[5] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-france/2004-07/index.html
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net |
| fingerprint: 075D 010B 80C3 AC68 BD4F
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:36:33PM +, Marco Ghirlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Knoppix should be distributing the source from the same location that
you would get the CD, so its still compliant with the GPL.
Really I couldn't find the sources of Knoppix anywhere.
not the only one :(
Has anyone written such a summary ?
Thanks
--
Lucas Nussbaum
21 matches
Mail list logo
