Re: GeForce nvidia driver license for commerical use?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 at 21:12:50 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > Are you referring to the special permission given by e-mail by Donald Randall > in 2003? I think you're misreading the copyright file. Randall Donald is a Debian contributor who asked Nvidia for permission to redistribute their

Re: GeForce nvidia driver license for commerical use?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 at 19:52:23 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: >  reading this link here below, it seems that compilation and repackaging the > content is prohibited by their license. What's your opinion on this? Please note that the Debian maintainers of nvidia-graphics-drivers have received

Re: Binary file inside fruit package

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 13:23:41 +0100, Sebastian Crane wrote: > What would you say the preferred form of modification should be for > chess opening books? I think talking about "the" preferred form for modification is often an oversimplification when discussing content that is not executable

Re: GPL-2-only packages using GPL-3+ readline

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 at 00:48:43 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > There are some packages with GPL-2-only licensed binaries that link with > GPL-3+ licensed libreadline.so.8. I do not know Debian-legal's current > interpretation on that matter. debian-legal is purely advisory, does not control what

Re: Maxmind GeoIP/Geolite license change

On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 at 03:08:29 +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote: > Am 04.01.2020 um 01:53 schrieb Faidon Liambotis: > > the libraries are free-libre, the file format > > is open and freely documented (CC-BY-SA 3.0), and there are both readers > > and writers for those formats in the archive. There

Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 02:34:13 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > ## > > > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification. > > > Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain > > > the actual form for modification. There are

Re: Missing source in firefox-esr: EME module

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 at 15:20:37 -0400, Nat Tuck wrote: > It'd probably be necessary to go through the packages in main and see > if any other packages download and install proprietary software at all, > or if this is just Firefox even in the more general case. I want to head this off right now,

Re: Hacking License

Please take a step back from the specifics of this license and think about its wider goals, and whether writing a new license helps to achieve them. I suspect it actually doesn't. Presumably you're aiming for something similar to the copyleft effect of the GPL and AGPL: you want people to improve

Re: Font-Awesome 5 no build system DFSG compatibility

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 00:38:15 +0200, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > Since version 5, font-awesome upstream repository contains both source > files and generated files but not the build system [1]. I think this is a technical issue, but not a DFSG violation; and I think it would be appropriate to track

Re: Unclear license information regarding copyleft

On Tue, 15 May 2018 at 19:22:54 +0200, Sven Bartscher wrote: > I'm the maintainer of the package dwarf-fortress in non-free. The > package as a whole is clearly non-free as the license states that „you > may redistribute the *unmodified* binary and accompanying files“ and the > source code to the

Re: License of the GPL license

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 10:50:04 +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > this question might be trivial, but I just realized that the GPL license > is itself licensed under a license that technically does not appear to > be DFSG compliant: We make an exception for the licenses of licenses, because

Re: How to determine the license of D-Bus interface spec files (XML)?

The usual term of art for the D-Bus interface descriptions you're talking about here is "introspection XML". On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 at 16:09:02 +0800, Boyuan Yang wrote: > * Vala source code files are generated from D-Bus interface spec files > (XML format) using "vala-dbus-binding-tool" (exist in

Re: Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 10:25:33 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Not a readymade solution, but perhaps a lead to follow: package copyright > info is supposed to be in a file debian/copyright within the package source > archive[1]. I don't know at the moment whether this info percolates to > the

Re: Unsure about a License with mandatory attribution clause

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 at 12:52:06 +0200, Andreas Moog wrote: > The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if > any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product > includes software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, > Mark VanderVoord, and Greg

Re: Licensing Issues for Proprietary Game Assets

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 at 09:41:30 +0200, Kyle Robbertze wrote: > Is it possible to package this for Debian with the asset license as is? Probably not. This sounds like a job for game-data-packager to me: it downloads and repackages proprietary game assets, or reads them from a non-distributable GOG

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 at 02:16:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > This benefit IMO far outweighs the risk that at some point someone > will abuse our goodwill to make Debian-format source packages out of > proprietary software. No-one, not even evil people, would want to do > that. As a consultant

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 at 01:33:04 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: [I wrote] > > Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian > > copyright file. > > Any licence regardless of its conditions (permissive, copyleft or even > nonfree), except the following ones, should be

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the > > license? > > It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical > Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive >

Re: Is an AGPL2 possible?

On 18/01/16 23:40, Jonathon Love wrote: > the AGPL3 is the GPL3 with an additional clause. is there some reason > why an AGPL2 wouldn't be possible? It exists, and is called the Affero GPL version 1 ; but it probably doesn't do what you want, because it isn't

Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0

On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote: As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t. Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices within NOTICE files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to preserve *any* descriptive text identified as an Attribution

Re: GPL + question

On 29/05/15 16:30, Ole Streicher wrote: Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org writes: So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+ and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the

Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement

On 14/04/15 19:25, Anton Gladky wrote: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a [...] revocable, [...] license As far as I can see, ST can revoke this license at any time, i.e. they can say no, we don't want to allow that any more, any further distribution of our software is copyright

Re: Does logo under CC BY SA makes entire project SA

On 25/02/15 15:55, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Now at least we agreed that logo could be released under CC BY SA (share-alike) license but I wondered: if I have a software project which is under more permissive license (MIT or BSD-3) and then includes that logo a) in the code b) in the

Re: Python GPL-3+ program w/o OpenSSL exception using python-requests

On 18/01/15 08:18, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 17 janvier 2015 19:14 +0100, W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org : Python program or library X is licensed under GPL3+ without OpenSSL exception. X does use the python-requests library, which on load dynamically links the Python interpreter with the

Re: Standard implementation of constant, copyright or not ?

On 16/01/15 16:23, Geoffrey Coram wrote: In particular, Stan Krolikoski wrote: Licensing part of standard (as opposed to licensing examples) under open source seems counterproductive-- a standard is fixed until the relevant standards WG decides to update it. Indeed, I would strongly argue

Re: confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation

On 11/11/14 06:44, Florian Weimer wrote: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/tools/turbocharger/mod_gzip.c?h=debian-sid I don't think this file is even compiled, so its license does not matter. I believe the ftp-masters' current interpretation of the DFSG is that

Re: confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation

[Re-sending with the necessary Ccs, sorry for the duplicate on debian-legal.] On 11/11/14 06:44, Florian Weimer wrote: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/tools/turbocharger/mod_gzip.c?h=debian-sid I don't think this file is even compiled, so its license does not

Re: Question about Facebook's Osquery: Additional Grant of Patent Rights

On 30/10/14 03:18, Riley Baird wrote: This is the part which worries me: no license is granted under Facebook’s rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (i) modifications to the Software made by you or a third party, or (ii) the Software in combination with any software or other

Re: License of Doom3-BFG

On 06/10/14 17:43, Tobias Frost wrote: 1. Replacement of Section 15. Section 15 of the GPL This is presumably GPL-3, since there is no §15 in the GPL-2. shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following Strictly speaking, I think this means they've placed Doom3-BFG under a

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl (reviving 2010 thread)

On 25/09/14 04:18, Andrew Erickson wrote: Could an 'official' person make a ruling on Guido's email from 2010 (link below)? debian-legal does not control or enforce Debian's official position on licensing or what can go into the archive. We can offer opinions and advice, but that's about it.

Re: apache2 and gpl2+

On 01/09/14 20:03, Johannes Schauer wrote: What would I put into debian/copyright? GPL2+ (which is what upstream uses but is unredistributable) or GPL3+? If it was me, I'd state the facts: Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Files: *

Re: apache2 and gpl2+

On 31/08/14 17:54, Johannes Schauer wrote: As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2 but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it into a GPL3 project

Re: license on upstream web site, not in tarball

On 28/08/14 19:28, Daniel Pocock wrote: If an upstream publishes a license (or link to GPL) and copyright on their web site but not in their tarball, how do people feel about that? Should it just be noted in a comment in debian/copyright? Copying emails/etc. into debian/copyright is

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

On 22/08/14 14:25, Eriberto Mota wrote: So, I am thinking that is because Debian distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of the junction of these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue? The key thing here

Re: copyright years in the copyright file

On 01/05/14 11:16, Riley Baird wrote: I still didn't get the problem. What is the copyright year for? What is the difference if a software is (c) 1999 or (c) 2014? All copyrighted materials enter the public domain after a certain number of years. To be able to work out whether something is

Re: Derivatives forced to have the same license

On 06/02/14 01:36, Matthew Kloth wrote: For example: I make an image and put it under my superviral license. Somebody else creates a derivative and posts it to deviantart or flickr or some such place. Their derivative work is automatically under the superviral license simply because they

Re: word lists

On 01/02/14 06:07, Werner LEMBERG wrote: (1) What happens with the copyright of works if I extract information as explained in my previous mail? (2) What copyright can a word list have at all, given that it gets mechanically extracted? [...] I think you'd have to ask a

Re: dxsamples: New upstream version 4.4.0 available

On 12/11/13 10:43, Graham Inggs wrote: The previous maintainer of dxsamples felt that the license of some of the examples added in more recent versions made it unsuitable for distribution in Debian. I don't see a license problem with what you quoted. It would be nice if the copyright holder

Re: CC0 and authors' names in Copyright field

On 02/10/13 08:49, Gioele Barabucci wrote: (BTW, is the fact that CC0 is a licence rather than a dedication an accepted POW? I thought it was still an open question.) My understanding is that it's both, stuck together, in one convenient document - to work around the jurisdictions where you

Re: SEIKO EPSON license, suitable for non-free ?

On 07/12/12 11:50, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: To ease the installation of the various Epson drivers [0], I'd like to get them uploaded to Debian (even non-free would be an improvement over their download page). That would be nice, but no permission has been given to redistribute them,

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

Please see the threads that led to http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 for exhaustive discussion about the GFDL vs. the DFSG. On 08/06/12 16:34, Christofer C. Bell wrote: I cannot think of a case where someone modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want to alter

Re: MIT/Expat with The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil statement

On 26/04/12 11:41, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote: I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package will have no special license as it's just wrapper around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE. Is it ok to patch such jsmin.py wrapper now to do

Re: Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian

On 28/03/12 07:40, Alexey Eromenko wrote: The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs As mentioned in Debian's patent policy http://www.debian.org/legal/patent point 3, please refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing patents outside of

Re: 3 questions around source of GPL images

I have no opinion on whether the SVG files are required by the GPL/DFSG, or just count as an older version of the preferred form for modification in this case. Defining the preferred form for modification for non-programs gets a bit vague... If it's easy to find the corresponding SVGs, the safe

Re: libidn re-license

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 for the old libidn, except for the LGPLv2 and

Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 at 16:47:33 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: the question for me is if Powered By SugarCRM is a reasonable author attribution. No, I don't think it is. Copyright © 2011 John Doe and Copyright © 2011 SugarCRM Inc. are both Appropriate Legal Notices; Incorporates code by John

Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

My recommendation (for basically any software, not just yours!) is still licensing under either the GPL, LGPL or Expat MIT/X11 license; of which the GPL sounds like the best fit for what you want. On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 at 14:18:41 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: Is there a debian-legal position on

Re: a Free Platform License?

The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must. I don't think whether your license is DFSG-compliant is the important issue here; I think the important issue is that your proposed license is not well-understood, has practical problems, and is contributing to license proliferation.

Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 at 07:32:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Ken Arromdee: Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds or software that uses this software. Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL? It may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so

Re: recommendation for packaging license

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 at 14:10:38 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote: Could you enhance the documentation of the copyright format or the policy with a recommendation for the copyright in the debian/* files section? I couldn't care less about the copyright and tend to use the Do What The Fuck You Want

Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 13:27:48 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote: This would seem to imply a field of use restriction against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the specification. It seems from the linked pages that one

Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 17:41:40 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. I'm glad to hear it!

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 at 11:04:11 +0100, Bruno Lowagie wrote: This is what the end consumer wants, and this is what 1T3XT wants, regardless of the opinion of any other party in-between. I think there's an important distinction between I believe that it's beneficial for everyone that this is

Re: data copyright or not -- what is Debian's take?

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 at 14:06:49 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: I don't see a need to specify “data”. What's wrong with “work”, the term normally seen in English-language copyright discussions for any information covered by copyright? Since the issue under discussion is things that might or might not

Re: data copyright or not -- what is Debian's take?

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 at 10:44:34 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Should I advise to blindly attach a copyright statement and license, possibly copyrighting non-copyrightable, thus committing Copyfraud in some jurisdictions? I'm not a lawyer or anything, but would this work? To the extent

Re: One-line licence statement

suggested the ikiwiki basewiki license.) On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 at 11:26:43 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Franck Joncourt franck.m...@dthconnex.com writes: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:57:58PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: A 2-line version that seems good is the one Joey Hess uses for the parts

Re: One-line licence statement

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 at 20:34:05 +0200, Franck Joncourt wrote: As a matter of fact upstream tries to find something as close as possible to the public domain but keeping the copyright holders. It is a matter of *how to write it?* A 2-line version that seems good is the one Joey Hess uses for