Sam Hartman writes:
>> "Jan" == Jan Mojzis writes:
>
> * Package name: randombytes
> Version : 20230126
> Upstream Author : Daniel J. Bernstein
> * URL : https://randombytes.cr.yp.to/
> * License : Public domain
>
> Public domain is problematic as a
Andreas Metzler writes:
> Hello,
>
> Do we consider ASN.1 modules (e.g. the specification of
> AttCertValidityPeriod in rfc 3281) to be code or specification?
>
> On one hand the rfc coyright fixup for "code components" in newer
> RFCs (post Nov 2008) explicitely includes ASN.1 modules as one of
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
But there's something unclear going on here: the debian/copyright
file of the opendmarc package states
[...]
| As of the date shown at the top right of this page, the Contributors
| have made this Specification available under the Open Web
Hi,
Has the Open Web Foundation Contributor License Agreement Version 1.0
licensed been reviewed for DFSG compatibility? I don't see it on these
pages:
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
The license text itself can be found in a recent package in Debian:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:26:21 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi,
Hi Simon!
Has this license been evaluated before? RFC 1950-1952 contains:
Copyright (c) 1996 L. Peter Deutsch and Jean-Loup Gailly
Permission is granted to copy
Hi,
Has this license been evaluated before? RFC 1950-1952 contains:
Copyright (c) 1996 L. Peter Deutsch and Jean-Loup Gailly
Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any
purpose and without charge, including translations into other
languages and incorporation
Simon McVittie s...@debian.org writes:
On 07/03/12 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
This effectively means: recipients of the new libidn may choose any
license which they could choose
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo k...@iki.fi writes:
Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org writes:
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo k...@iki.fi writes:
I believe GPLv2+|LGPLv3+ is incompatible with
GPLv2|OpenSSL-linking-exception, used in ekg2.
Thank you for a good data point. I've brought this up with
licens
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo k...@iki.fi writes:
Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org writes:
I have looked at licenses of reverse dependencies, and I did
found some GPLv2-only packages. That caused me to dual license
the package instead of going to LGPLv3+. (GPLv2-only and
LGPLv3
(This was initially posted on debian-devel but it was suggested to also
bring this up on debian-legel.)
I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty
mån 2012-02-27 klockan 16:10 +0100 skrev Thomas Koch:
Hi,
I've prepared an update to Debian's doc-rfc package and found an 11 years old
issue[1] whether RFC's can be included in Debians main repo or not. I just
started using the internet around that time...
[1]
The Blowfish code in Nettle has already been re-implemented under
LGPLv2+ but not released yet. I am working on re-implementing Serpent
under LGPLv2+, however there are multiple and incompatible test vectors
of Serpent and it is not clear which corresponds to the real Serpent.
Meanwhile, perhaps
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org writes:
On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote:
The Blowfish code in Nettle has already been re-implemented under
LGPLv2+ but not released yet. I am working on re-implementing Serpent
under LGPLv2+, however there are multiple
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org writes:
On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote:
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org writes:
[...]
I have the feeling that the discussion I started is an academic one
anyway. Nettle's public key library (libhogweed) uses
Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org writes:
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org writes:
On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote:
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org writes:
[...]
I have the feeling that the discussion I started is an academic one
anyway
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
This question is important, because I couldn't find a public domain
implementation of this function.
That's a shame but I don't know hmac_md5 myself. Is there a free
software (rather than PD) implementation? There appear to be several
HMAC-MD5
Ted Guild t...@w3.org writes:
W3C is creating an excerpt license (current draft online [1]) and
hoping to get public review and feedback, including particularly from
the Open Source community.
The complete license is reproduced below, for easy review on
debian-legal.
One problematic part
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
I don't think this holds. The advertising clause in the 4-clause BSD
license is GPL incompatible according to ('Original BSD
Didier Raboud did...@raboud.com writes:
Hi debian-legal,
smssend was removed from Debian due to licensing issues (#399685 and
#487523). As far as I understand it, the problem is/was the following :
* the code efectively links to OpenSSL (through skyutils2)
* its licence is GPLv2+
You can download the latest smssend source code here :
http://archive.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/smssend/
To summarize what I understood :
* skyutils(-dev) is LGPL and build-depends on libssl-dev - it visibly links
statically against libssl-dev, because the resulting binary
Didier Raboud did...@raboud.com writes:
Le lundi 9 février 2009 15:22:01 Simon Josefsson, vous avez écrit :
Yes, although looking at the code in skyutils2, it seems its only use of
openssl is to download web pages or something like that. Can't you use
libcurl instead? That might be a better
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 �Á� 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a �Á�crit :
The only
case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
other cases, I would be interested to
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081129 11:26]:
All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for
the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting
services for people needing to put their personal
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081129 13:34]:
Current hosting services usually only have one project for a specific
piece of software with a limited set of people allowed to change it.
I don't see how I do not want to maintain this software
I expect the GFDLv1.3 license will be used by several projects soon.
Thoughts on its DFSG-status?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
License quoted below for easy commenting.
/Simon
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.3, 3 November 2008
Copyright
Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I've recently been discussing[1] with another developer his libs3
library - a library to access amazon's S3. It is licensed under
Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I've recently been discussing[1] with another developer his libs3
library - a library to access amazon's S3. It is licensed under the
GPLv3, but links to curl, which in turn links to openssl. It's
possible to port libs3 to use curl+libgnutls
All,
The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
announcement below.
As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
terms. The intention is to allow code-like portions to be licensed
under a BSD-like license.
It would be useful if we can review
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
License
---
The DEP must have a license that is DFSG free.
I've just pushed that to http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep0/trunk/ (I didn't
think that needs any discussion; if I was wrong, it's easy enough to
revert).
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Simon, thanks for forwarding this.
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Basically, this post is a For-Your-Information note, and while it
doesn't bring up something for discussion on this list, I do think a
license change in the IETF may be interesting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
The GPL requires to publish all from the work to be published under the
GPL but not more.
- The build scripts in many cases are not part of the work.
This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf.
This is true for all
Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an entirely new license
Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I know, the FSF doesn't forbid anyone to use GPL with an
OpenSSL exception.
That's entirely possible, but you haven't provided an example which
isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can
provide such an example,
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an entirely new license.
I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is because *your* MUA is broken. The Mail-Followup-To header is
not a standard of any kind, which is why only a handful of (broken) MUAs
implement it. And I mean broken, because it should be named X-Something
until it gets standardized.
It
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing:
| If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the
| following ones are also fine:
| * the 3-clause BSD license
|
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon, I would like to thank you for your effort in this struggle
against non-free IETF documents in Debian (main).
I really appreciate the time that you're dedicating to improving Debian
from this point of view! :)
Good job!
Thanks, that helps me
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how
those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a
DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's
too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list
of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that
appear to contain IETF RFC or I-D's
Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's
too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list
of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that
appear to contain IETF RFC or I-D's at:
http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ietf-in-src.txt
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 05:49:16PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Some of these documents MAY be freely available -- check with the
author -- but as far as I could see, in no case was this noted in the
copyright file, so I'm assuming
There is some discussion in one of the bug reports:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390664
(please read it first)
The problem is essentially, if I understood it correctly, whether
Debian source packages [in main] must be DFSG-free or not, or whether
it is sufficient that Debian
Hi all.
A few months ago, I went over the package list manually to find IETF
I-D's, but I finally wrote a simplistic script to do this for me:
#!/bin/sh
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, there are DFSG-freeness issues in the package.
From COPYRIGHTS:
The package also contains code derived from RFC 3174 (SHA1). The code is
distributed with the following copyright notice by the Internet Society:
Partly copyright (C) The
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For IANA, the data actually is already in Debian main, in the doc-iana
package. The e-mail correspondence found in the doc-iana debian/copyright
file [3] indicates that the rfc-copyright-story document [4] applies
to all IANA documents. This looks
Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:22:43 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
are (I believe) in the public domain.
Public domain RFCs
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The RFC's published here all were made by individuals, and were
not made by some IETF process.
rfc1459 comes from a document that was always part of the irc
source package.
Understood, but it seems that RFC 2810-2813 may have been improved by
the IETF
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi all!
Hi!
I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
Good, I tagged your bug nonfree-doc
I went over the package list more carefully, and it seems the only two
public domain RFCs that are included in Debian testing:
usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc951.txt.gznet/dhcp3-common
usr/share/doc/camstream-doc/tech/rfc959.txt.gz doc/camstream-doc
The following
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Simon Josefsson:
text/xml2rfc
From the debian/copyright file:
| The software is released under the following license. Note that the
| output produced by xml2rfc may include more restrictive copyright
| statements, to conform with ISOC and IETF
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810
That package seem to be in non-free now... I'm arguing the same for
RFCs in other packages too.
The bug
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
and better than I would expect.
Should
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi all!
I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
Then I looked at what other packages
Hi all!
I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
and better than
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
c. maybe it rfc releated and need waiting for RFC license discussion (i
dont know the status of it)?
The RFC copyright licence problems have been discussed. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/threads.html#00151
for one possibly relevant thread
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Noèl Köthe wrote:
document itself may not be modified in any way is the main point.
The following are examples and more information. It looks like its
just a copy of a RFC license e.g.
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt
The copyright
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
and they propose to use the following license:
1.1 License
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
provided that redistributed derivative works do
Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
and they propose to use the following license:
1.1 License
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
misleading author or version
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:22:32AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
and they propose to use the following license:
1.1 License
Royalty free license to copy and use
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
and they propose to use the following license:
Is this DFSG-free?
It looks fine to me, but if it's still a draft then I think it would be
useful to use a
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:28:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE, Discuss, Hesiod, Kerberos,
Moira, and Zephyr are trademarks of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). No commercial use
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
Kerberos is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
...
My question is: What is Debian's policy on trademarks for terms used
Hi! This was intended for debian-mentors, but since it is a legal
issue, I thought it would be more appropriate here.
I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
Kerberos is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE,
Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
This isn't in Debian yet but a couple of projects (1 LGPL and 1 GPL) I
am trying to package include files from the Unicode site.
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.c
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.h
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that is a free software license. RMS has reviewed it and
thought it was OK. If people here would review it as well, that may
be useful.
To simplify review, below is the Unicode Consortium's license.
FWIW, I recall that RMS reviewed
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to have missed one occurrence of unauthorized redistributed.
I would suggest suppressing unauthorized there...
Ah, right. When doing that, I realized we could make it even more
readable. Here is the latest updated version:
c. The
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051209 10:38]:
(b) do not claim endorsement of the modified work by the
Contributor, or any organization the Contributor
belongs to, the Internet Engineering Task
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'e.g.' is correct for introducing an example. However, given the number of
people who don't know the difference :-), for example is better.
I've changed it to for example, thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Btw, the latest revised license reads:
c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
right to copy
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:19:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure about my suggested
A member of the IPR WG proposed to require that people modifying RFCs
would be required to add a warning label. He suggested the
following license. Would this be DFSG free? I believe it would be.
It appears to be an extreme form of statements such as clearly label
modified works as being
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Morally, I think it's indefensible to have promised to restrict
-private's circulation and then to break that promise and
publish without permission. But is the approach in the GR legal?
What about changing the PR, so that FROM NOW ON, the debian-private
list
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the license require ANY endorsement by the IETF to be removed,
saying the original work is an IETF RFC would not be permitted.
Huh? The factual information that the text is based on an IETF RFC
does
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure about my suggested name of work phrase; it's clunky,
anyone got anything better?
I agree it sounds strange, but I can't think
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license,
That means the
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
s/specifically imply/specifically implies/
s/Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/
Fixed, thanks!
I would also personally change the important sentance to this (changes
marked by *'s):
This specifically *implies* that *a modified version*
must
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license, and I want to check with this community
whether this proposed
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively, you could try asking the relevant people if they'd grant
a more permissive license for the data table, in order to encourage the
wide and correct use of the standard surrounding it.
That is a good suggestion.
I have mailed the RFC
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
(everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of
them, which may have taken a lot of
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Otherwise, how do Debian handle the situation when the RFC is
parsed, and become part of the implementation? In other words,
where the GPL
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11:20AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Have Debian evaluated the new RFC copying conditions? Quoting
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3667.txt section 3.3:
a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do Debian consider it problematic if source packages include, say,
RFCs, which, if I understand correctly, are considered non-free by
Debian otherwise?
Yes. As soon as such cases are found by somebody who knows and cares,
bugs will be filed, and the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:04:44AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
(everything in it is an uncreative fact;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
About the modules/ files. I wrote most of them. What kind of copyright
would you find useful, given that it's only meta-information?
I suggest, based on the advice in maintain.texi:
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Copying
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Shaul,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
Can someone explain what is the problem with the following situation?
In particular, why it is important here to have the OpenSSL layer
relicense under the LGPL?
Think of the
85 matches
Mail list logo
