[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Fester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There needs to be a statement in each copyrighted file stating the
license granted to the recipient. If that statement refers to license
There is no such need, unless the licensing status of some files is
ambiguous.
--
ciao,
Hi Frank (and all others),
thanks for the clarifications!
Frank Küster wrote:
An earlier version of the package is already in Debian
and it also contains the file Manual.texi with the same
copyright information, but the file was only in the
source package while the new version now contains a
Andreas Fester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
have it relicensed.
... which means that the upstream author has to *replace* the
questionable section with a reference to, for example, the GPL,
right?
There needs to be a statement in each copyrighted file stating the
license granted to the
Andreas Fester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, you have to remove it from the orig.tar.gz, or...
- Anything else?
have it relicensed.
... which means that the upstream author has to *replace* the
questionable section with a reference to, for example, the GPL,
right?
Well, a signed
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, this could be difficult, at least when generated files come
into play...
Generated files are, by definition, not the source code of the work;
in the case of the GPL, they are not the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. Some
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, in that sense most other software licenses cover documentation,
e.g. the GPL - that was the main point of my statement. But I see no
license that was specifically designed and worded to apply to
documentation but not programs, as many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the package for the new upstream version of synopsis
(http://synopsis.fresco.org/) which I created was
rejected:
rejected, your debian/copyright misses information.
The manual has a different one than the rest.
And at least Manual.texi looks
Andreas Fester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An earlier version of the package is already in Debian
and it also contains the file Manual.texi with the same
copyright information, but the file was only in the
source package while the new version now contains a
-doc package which allows to install
On 7/10/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
documentation that has been approved by -legal.
Actually, the MIT license[1] covers documentation:
---
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of
Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
documentation that has been approved by -legal.
Actually, the MIT license[1] covers documentation:
---
Permission is hereby granted, free
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
documentation that has been approved by -legal.
More precisely, there is no license specifically designed to apply
only to documents, as opposed to other types of software, that has
been approved
On Jan 7, 2004, at 11:00, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Can I just say ...distributed under the terms of the GPL, with the
exception that this code may be linked with OpenSSL or somesuch? I'd
rather not relicence under a BSD-style thingumy.
Parts that might be useful to upstream should probably be
Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
See bug 211644 for context. Currently, the patch to ssh (which is a
substantial piece of work) is released under the GPL. OpenSSL is
apparantly not under the integral part of the system exception, so
there is a conflict between my GPL patch, and the
Hi,
See bug 211644 for context. Currently, the patch to ssh (which is a
substantial piece of work) is released under the GPL. OpenSSL is
apparantly not under the integral part of the system exception, so
there is a conflict between my GPL patch, and the OpenSSL licence.
Can I just say
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an
english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written
by a non-english common law attorney.]
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
My
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
integrating it in another software is allowed only if the
distribution consists
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:15:35AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
integrating
Hello,
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source +
patches, not binaries, and i will be going to discuss this with the
upstream
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source +
patches, not binaries, and i will be going to
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
A brief addendum to my previous reply: the non-free package qmail-src
might be a good model to follow as qmail has a similar restriction in
its licence.
Edmund
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an
english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written
by a non-english common law attorney.]
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian,
since it allow
Hello, ...
I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
discussed here previously, and have one last question.
To recapitulate, upstream is packaging a pci adsl modem driver, which
use a software library to do the ADSL decoding. They don't have the
source to this library
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:15:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
discussed here previously, and have one last question.
To recapitulate, upstream is packaging a pci adsl modem driver, which
use a software library to do the ADSL
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:32:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:15:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
discussed here previously, and have one last question.
To recapitulate, upstream is packaging
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:38:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is
non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code
will be distributed together, this can be uploaded to non-free. Note
that being able to
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:02:03AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:38:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is
non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code
will be distributed
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What would be needed for the proprietary part ? A licence stating that
it is ok to distribute it and link it with the GPLed driver ? Would that
be enough ?
Permission to redistribute both the .o files, and binary kernel
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the
redistribution rights of the proprietary .o nonethless.
If the exemption
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:32:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on
something you do in-house.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:16:20AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:32:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, thought so, since the GPL only
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the United States and many other places, copyright registrations are
allowed for typefaces only under very limited circumstances.
However, a program that spells out how to draw a typeface can be
placed under copyright without any doubt at all.
Please CC: me, i'm not subscribed to debian-legal.
Note: i posted this in October already.
Attached below is the planned debian/copyright, including the
licence i got from the author.
Can this package go into non-free?
The biggest Problem is the sentence The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,
not
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:28:53PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
The biggest Problem is the sentence The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,
not sold. i think.
This is a legal fiction -- though it happens to be one that even Free
Software licensors attempt to use to their advantage -- so I don't think
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 06:00:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:28:53PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
The biggest Problem is the sentence The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,
not sold. i think.
This is a legal fiction -- though it happens to be one that even Free
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:28:53PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
[...]
copyright:
---
Larabie Fonts End-user license agreement software product from Larabie Fonts
---
[...]
If you keep the fonts as they are,
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
Scripsit Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kdelibs (gpl). I was told that this is a problem. Is there any
chance to get it into debian?
Wasn't the QPL vs. GPL thing resolved nowardays?
AFAIR the resolution consisted of TrollTech eventually giving in
(or, alternatively, coming to their
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Martin Schulze wrote:
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
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?
I heard there is a way if I ask the
41 matches
Mail list logo
