the right thing to do is remove the
CAcert certificates from the package. This change will be committed to
the collab-maint git repo shortly.
I appreciate the bug report, mejiko, and for others taking the time to
consider this issue. I will consider a ca-certificates-cacert ITP for
inclusion in non
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Michael Shuler wrote:
Among other suggestions, Francesco Poli recommended including a verbatim
copy of this license.
You should not. If the license has no legal force, you should not propagate
it and give people the impression that it does.
The
Control: tags -1 wontfix
On 11/04/2012 03:23 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
I hereby grant you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to eat
cheese with salami, subject to the following conditions:
- You do not use the name of debian-legal while talking with food in your
mouth.
-
to do is remove the
CAcert certificates from the package. This change will be committed to
the collab-maint git repo shortly.
I appreciate the bug report, mejiko, and for others taking the time to
consider this issue. I will consider a ca-certificates-cacert ITP for
inclusion in non-free.
--
Kind
will consider a ca-certificates-cacert ITP for
inclusion in non-free.
Which debian-legal thread were you reading? Because the two comments I see
cc:ed to this bug report from debian-legal, from Francesco Poli and Florian
Weimer, both point out that *certificates are not copyrightable*. An SSL
different
opinions from debian-legal regulars. I am one of them, but what follows
is just my own personal opinion.
On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote:
[...]
ca-certificates packeages included Cacert Root certificates.
This certificates licensed under Cacert Root Distribution
* Raphael Geissert:
TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to
distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca-
certificates, Fedora says it is non-free.
What do the others think about it?
If we take CA certificate license
Le Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Raphael Geissert a écrit :
Hi everyone,
mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote:
[...]
ca-certificates packeages
Hi everyone,
mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote:
[...]
ca-certificates packeages included Cacert Root certificates.
This certificates licensed under Cacert
Your message dated Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:35:09 -0500
with message-id 201209151235.10044.geiss...@debian.org
has caused the report #687693,
regarding ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) debian-legal@lists.debian.org
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
In some countries (USA and Germany?) lists/databases are copyrightable,
even is single data is not! (phone book, games scores and statistics,...)
Not in the United States.
The controlling Supreme Court precedent is _Feist
and disposition content are automatically-generated). CA
certificates (the original topic) aren't covered either because they are
not novel intellectual creations (they also are automatically-generated).
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is an
ugly, ugly term... and everything
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It
Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In some countries (USA and Germany?) lists/databases are copyrightable,
even is single data is not! (phone book, games scores and statistics,...)
Don't you mean protected by the Database Directive, which is not the
same thing as copyright: it has a much
Aiya!
In some countries (USA and Germany?) lists/databases are copyrightable,
even is single data is not! (phone book, games scores and statistics,...)
In Russia too.
EGE Don't you mean protected by the Database Directive, which is not the
EGE same thing as copyright: it has a much shorter
Florian Weimer wrote:
snip
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It also fails the
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
* Niklas Vainio:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
My understanding is that copyright laws speak
* Russ Allbery:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 04 May 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
A few packages contain software (well, everything's software these
days) which is cryptographically protected against modification.
This seems to violate DFSG §3.
Uh, if you're refering to the PGP keys and
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It also
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
They might do in some jurisdictions, but I would guess that in most
they don't. The public key is
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
My understanding is that copyright laws speak about original works
23 matches
Mail list logo
