Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons
people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will
appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is
as follows. The FSF retains special authority
unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For my
Martin Schulze wrote:
I've been informed about details of the PHP license:
For php3:
5. The name PHP must not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without prior written permission
from the PHP Development Team. This does not apply to add
MJ Ray wrote:
As a first attempt to fix, if it's thought to be a problem, can
you ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] to give blanket permission for php packaging
to be called PHP or PHP for distribution-or-package-system?
Tried that, received:
996 N ! Feb 21 PHP Automoderator 117 PHP posting
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not sure if this is possible but would it be fine when modified to read:
3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm,
with
or without additions developed by you or others, then you must
make available
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure if this is possible but would it be fine when modified to read:
3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with
or without additions developed by you or others, then you
Thanks for your input!
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Permission is hereby granted for copying and distribution of copies of
the Elm source files, and that of any part thereof, subject to the
following
license conditions:
1. You may, without additional permission from
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
A further issue: it never defines Elm Documentation, though it
capitalizes it as if it were a proper noun. So it's not clear to me
whether this is trying to claim rights to Elm Documentation I write,
independent of any copyrighted words produced by EDG.
I'd say it
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could somebody check if this license is compatible with the GPL? It was
considered free with Debian, if I remember correctly.
1. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute
Elm
Thanks Andrew!
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:46:33AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with
or without additions developed by you or others, then you must
either make available the source to all
Could somebody check if this license is compatible with the GPL? It was
considered free with Debian, if I remember correctly. I'm a bit worried
about 4. 'may not omit any of the copyright notices on [..] the executable
file.
Regards,
Joey
Moin,
According to a Reuters story, Microsoft's Sender-ID standard has been
revised and will be resubmitted to the IETF.
I wonder what people are thinking about this revision.
Do we have a common stance on it?
Here are URLs on it:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Another vendor using the Debian domain. I'm not sure if there is
anything we can do about it but though at least you'd like to know
someone has done this in Japan.
Hmm, should we try to claim not to use debian domain?
I'm not familiar about domain name dispute
Roland Stigge wrote:
today I read that Alan Kay will receive this years's Turing Award[1] and
checked out his Open Source project Squeak[2]. I also realized that
there is an open RFP for it[3]. The package is supposed to be free, but
when I checked the license[4] and the package files, I
I wonder if all documents licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License[1] are inherently non-free with regards to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines[2].
I thought that if no invariant sections were used the document would
still be considered free. However, if invariant sections were used
Roland Stigge wrote:
(2) Clause 2 also states: 'You may distribute and sublicense the Fonts
only as a part of and for use with Modified Software, and not as a part
of or for use with Modified Software that is distributed or sublicensed
for a fee or for other valuable consideration.'
2
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sami Liedes wrote:
[Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front
Moin!
Bug#152857 requests freeamp to be removed from the stable distribution
because upstream renamed (had to rename) itself into Zinf, because
AMPR is a trademark of PlayMedia Systems.
The website states: Zinf is based on the FreeAmp source code.
However, AMPR is a trademark of PlayMedia
Martin Schulze wrote:
As of version 1.65 manpages from the POSIX standard are included with
the following copyright note:
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and The Open Group,
have given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation
As of version 1.65 manpages from the POSIX standard are included with
the following copyright note:
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and The Open Group,
have given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation.
In the following statement, the phrase
Sven Luther wrote:
The CD itself did not include source packages due to space limitations.
However, there's a writen statement that and where you can request the
corresponding source. We have two sets of a 3-cd source archive for
this CD. This is the same as for last LinuxTag special
Bruce Perens wrote:
Richard, Branden, and Co.,
I remain convinced that hot tempers are getting in the way. Thus, I would like
to make two requests:
1. That the Debian folks designate someone other than Branden to speak
the Debian side of this argument. Diplomacy counts. Branden, please
In general, if http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/legal doesn't
answer your questions sufficiently, please let us know what is
missing so we can alter the content.
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i have a question about the single CD that was distributed at
LinuxTag for example, did it also include the
Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by
Felix E. Klee wrote:
I guess that most of you are informed about software patents and know
that they are incompatible with most, if not all, free software licenses
(if not visit http://tinyurl.com/k64f).
No need to encrypt and hide URLs or did I miss something important?
While planning this
Mathieu Roy wrote:
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that
previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to
Steve Langasek wrote:
I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate.
I guess this case is difficult, since you could interpret each php
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed
I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
this is not a new restriction to the GPL?
I see that phpnuke is still in main in testing and
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Debian Press Team wrote:
Thank you for your interest in the Debian Project!
Debian Press Team,
Please don't spam the Debian Legal Team.
Thanks!
Please bug the spammer so it doesn't send mail with headers like:
From:
This could affect us as well. It talks about a donation from Sun
that includes patents and: ``the licence on the new code basically
builds a contract that says if you use this code, you cannot sue
Sun''.
Full article:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=103280816316720w=2
Here's an
The GNU GPL says:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/27/1626241.shtml
New MP3 License Terms Demand $0.75 Per Decoder
*Posted by chrisd[1] on Tuesday August 27, @03:27PM*
*from the good-thing-ogg-is-up-to-speed dept.*
Götz[2] writes The licensing terms of Thomson and the Fraunhofer
Thomas Bliesener wrote:
Perhaps it's worth to mention 3b):
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, ...
How is that different to (2)?
(2) The distributor
Thomas Bliesener wrote:
CDs are bloody cheap only if you produce a certain amount of them (e.g.
2000 Debian CD sets which would be 28,000 CDs). If you produce only 500
Nice calculation... *shiver* *fear*
Regards,
Joey
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
Could you reread and check?
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
Err
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
Regards,
Joey
--
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall
I'm trying a summary here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
to advise the person, who
Hi,
a discussion arose recently and I'd like to discuss the outcome and
the way to go.
The current status quo:
a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
binary packages, no source. This CD is
Chris Lawrence wrote:
In other words: you have opened a massive can of worms. :-)
*looking innocent* It wasn't me... :-) But I'd like the issue solved
so there's a clear statement for people, companies and entities to get
pointed to in order to preserve them from license infringement.
Regards,
Steve Langasek wrote:
4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
not in complience with the license terms?
Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
into compliance, or are you asking what can be done to legally force
them to?
Bernd Warken wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 06:54:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 11:59:47PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote:
Some time ago, there was a discussion to make documents under the GNU
Free Documentation License (FDL) unfree for Debian.
Some time ago,
Maximilian Reiss wrote:
I intend to package the liquid kde theme by mosfet.
(www.mosfet.org/liquid.html).
The Licence problem is, that this theme is under qpl, but is linked against
kdelibs (gpl). I was told that this is a problem. Is there any chance to get
it into debian?
Wasn't the QPL
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
TOG have released Motif under an Open Source license which isn't. (See
also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 )
Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/:
Open Source programs mean software for which the source code is
Denis Barbier wrote:
I can not determine whether this license is DFSG compliant or not,
and i do not agree with opinions expressed on comp.text.tex about my
questions.
So could someone confirm this is DFSG compliant, as claimed by the LaTeX
Team ?
I put `-' marks in front of the 3 lines
James A. Treacy wrote:
The legal team may want to think about the following.
- Forwarded message from Florian Kunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
We just discovered some similarities in the DEBIAN logo with the logo of
the DWD (german weather services) (www.dwd.de).
To differentiate more
Richard Stallman wrote:
What bothers me with Corel is not them using Debian, but rather they fact
that
they gave nothing back to us or the community. Not code, time, or money.
What Corel-written programs are in the distribution, and what are
their licenses? Are any of them free
Caspian wrote:
So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by:
A: Downloading Corel Linux
B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and
C: Replacing them.
then...
D: Publicizing this heavily.
This would be fun. And it would be a free easy Redistribution of
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
How does the patented technology in bladeenc affect Debian more than the
patented technology in gimp-nonfree? Does some sort of universal grant of
rights apply to the LZW patent that is not present for the mp3 technology in
bladeenc? I'm confused about why it even
Upon request I've creted the `debian-legal' list. It's purpose is
to discuss licensing issues.
Regards,
Joey
--
VFS: no free i-nodes, contact Linus -- finlandia, Feb '94
50 matches
Mail list logo
