Hi,
Le 25/03/2015 18:30, Paul van der Vlis a écrit :
They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
code.
No, it's plain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/05/2014 22:01, Paul Gevers a écrit :
Hi Sergio, debian-legal
Sergio, sorry to annoy you (one last time I hope) with this
license.
On 21-05-14 00:54, Sergio Oller wrote:
I have standarized to Festvox. Given that the changes were
Le 10/04/2014 14:18, Paul Wise a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
I'm packaging libpcl [1] and lintian show a message about privacy-breach-logo
and privacy-breach-generic.
This question is off-topic on debian-legal, please contact the
Le 10/04/2014 13:40, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda a écrit :
Hi,
I'm packaging libpcl [1] and lintian show a message about privacy-breach-logo
and privacy-breach-generic.
About the privacy-breach-generic is clear, the documentation has a link to en
external webpage with a file. For
Le 11/03/2014 20:10, Sam Kuper a écrit :
My point was that if legal (in some jurisdictions) and literary
discussions of abuse are completely excluded from Debian, then an act
of censorship has been performed, which may itself be viewed as a real
- though different - harm.
No.
Deciding to not
Hi,
IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which
as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please
don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by you):
Hi,
Le 10/03/2014 21:12, Christoph Biedl a écrit :
Paul Tagliamonte wrote...
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
Thibaut Paumard wrote...
IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
I think that the effective
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 15/01/2013 14:41, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard
In response to: bugs.debian.org/669016
Software homepage mentioned below: http://gyoto.obspm.fr/
Le 16/04/12 17:38, Etienne Millon a écrit :
Hello,
I just had a quick look at the website :
We also request that Gyoto modifications, extensions or plug-ins
leading to a scientific
Le 16/04/12 18:09, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
In response to: bugs.debian.org/669016
Software homepage mentioned below: http://gyoto.obspm.fr/
Le 16/04/12 17:38, Etienne Millon a écrit :
We also request that Gyoto modifications, extensions or plug-ins
leading to a scientific publication
Dear Amos,
Le 29/09/11 22:19, Amos Blanton a écrit :
I'm working on getting the rest of the Scratch Team to sign off on
releasing Scratch 1.4 under the GPL v3. One roadblock that remains is
that we feel it's important to prevent others from re-releasing modified
versions of Scratch with our
Hi,
Le 30/11/10 23:46, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
But copyright doesn't apply to independent invention, which he claims this
is, and which seems fairly reasonable. If he independently invented it we
only have a trademark claim; if we don't have a trademark claim we have
none.
IANAL, but as far
Hi,
I think it's mostly a (4-clause) BSD license, only the name of the
institute has changed. The 5th clause is new, but redundant with the
rest.
Le 22 janv. 10 à 11:49, Ben Finney a écrit :
## 5. Any commercial, public or published work that uses this
data ##
## must
Le 20 janv. 10 à 11:10, MJ Ray a écrit :
Thibaut Paumard suggested:
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under
[1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...]
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?
It turns out I've
Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under [1]CeCILL license
in the archive. The CeCILL licenses are wordy and the project would benefit
from having them in /usr/share/common-licenses.
[1]
in advance for any advice,
Regards, Thibaut.
copyright
Description: Binary data
--
Dr Thibaut Paumard | LESIA/CNRS - B. Lyot (n°6)
Tel: +33 1 45 07 75 45 | Observatoire de Paris - Section de Meudon
Fax: +33 1 45 07 79 17 | 5, Place Jules Janssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 92195 MEUDON CEDEX
Dear legal aware folks,
I have recently adopted [1]gimp-gap. While reviewing it, I noticed
that the copyright notice written on almost every file is inaccurate.
It reads
THE GIMP -- an image manipulation program
Copyright (C) 1995 Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis.
etc.: standard GPL
18 matches
Mail list logo
