Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

Soren Stoutner writes: > "that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to > later versions > *WITHOUT* any additional permission from the copyright holders” > > That was an egregious enough typo that I felt compelled to send another >

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

om/fxbois/web-mode/blob/a9d21841224da3295f2dd0a90022f5e435e48046/web-mode.el#L13 > > The existing copyright says GPL-2+ (not GPL-2). > Ack. I should have used the more precise terms. > On 2024-04-10 23:05, Xiyue Deng wrote: >> 1. whether I can add the new copyright sectio

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

"that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions *WITHOUT* any additional permission from the copyright holders” That was an egregious enough typo that I felt compelled to send another email. I apologize for the noise. On Friday, April 12, 20

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

copyright entry to GPLv3+. I can’t do that with Electrum because there is no automatic conversion from GPLv3+ to Expat. But it is an option that is open to you if you would like to pursue it. It also isn’t a problem if you decide to leave all your contributions to debian/* as GPLv2+, as any GPLv2

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

metainfo to them. To do this, I wanted all of my new contributions to debian/* to be licensed under Expat when I was the sole author of the file, and dual licensed under GPLv3+ and Expat when I was editing an existing file. I indicated that in the following way: Files: debian/* Copyright

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

/a9d21841224da3295f2dd0a90022f5e435e48046/web-mode.el#L13 The existing copyright says GPL-2+ (not GPL-2). On 2024-04-10 23:05, Xiyue Deng wrote: 1. whether I can add the new copyright section to cover debian/*, and I think it is pretty typical to have a debian/* section. And if the licenses differ (see below), then you would

Missing copyright clause of debian directory

Hi, I start working on adopting web-mode whose previous maintainer Thomas Koch[1] became MIA (see Bug#1019031). When working on d/copyright, it turns out that there was only one copyright section that covered "Files: *" with upstream copyright owners but no separate section for "

Re: hard linking libboost copyright files

Hi, Il 04/02/24 06:38, Muhammad Yaaseen ha scritto: we see that the copyright for libboost debian packages are 2MB each and are all the same. as per https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html section 12.5 <https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html%20section%2012.5&g

Re: hard linking libboost copyright files

Andreas Metzler writes: > On 2024-02-04 Muhammad Yaaseen wrote: >> The question is once we install the libboost .deb packages into a >> system, the copyright file for each libboost package is stored >> separately in /usr/shared/doc/packages folder. I'm think of >>

Re: hard linking libboost copyright files

On 2024-02-04 Andreas Metzler wrote: [...] > The canonical solution would be to add libboost-commonx.xx containing > what is currently found in /usr/share/doc/libboost-foox.xx and symlink > the whole directory. You'll probably need to make libboost-commonx.xx > arch all to be binNMU compatible.

Re: hard linking libboost copyright files

On 2024-02-04 Muhammad Yaaseen wrote: > The question is once we install the libboost .deb packages into a > system, the copyright file for each libboost package is stored > separately in /usr/shared/doc/packages folder. I'm think of > hardlinking these copyright files so that we same

RE: hard linking libboost copyright files

Hi, The question is once we install the libboost .deb packages into a system, the copyright file for each libboost package is stored separately in /usr/shared/doc/packages folder. These copyright files are all the same. I'm think of hardlinking these copyright files so that we same some

Re: hard linking libboost copyright files

On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 10:50:43AM +, Muhammad Yaaseen wrote: > The question is once we install the libboost .deb packages into a system, > the copyright file for each libboost package is stored separately in > /usr/shared/doc/packages folder. I'm think of hardlinking these copyrigh

RE: hard linking libboost copyright files

Hi Steve, The question is once we install the libboost .deb packages into a system, the copyright file for each libboost package is stored separately in /usr/shared/doc/packages folder. I'm think of hardlinking these copyright files so that we same some memory. Is this legally allowed

Re: hard linking libboost copyright files

On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 05:38:57AM +, Muhammad Yaaseen wrote: > we see that the copyright for libboost debian packages are 2MB each and > are all the same. as per > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html section > 12.5<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-poli

hard linking libboost copyright files

Hi, we see that the copyright for libboost debian packages are 2MB each and are all the same. as per https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html section 12.5<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html%20section%2012.5> we are not allowed to create symbolic links. the

d/copyright for source having MPL-2.0 + "adaptation from ..."

Hello, We got a rejection from FTP masters asking to mention SUN Microsystems in addition to MPL-2.0. My question would be, how would you transcribe this into d/copyright given that the source file upstream is not precise. Upstream is here (with its issue for that matter referecing

Re: d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

erhaps - but some people provide code without having any interest in the implementation details that users might run into. Still, that code might be useful to use & distribute. This is one of many ways Debian and upstream might have different or conflicting goals. > > It'd be r

Re: d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

nds. > It'd be reasonable to include the original license and copyright statements. Right. > If I do, Debian requires packagers to describe the license and copyright on > those embedded license/copyright files.  And I'm puzzled about how to do that > best. Same as for any other fi

Re: d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

Hi Richard, On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 10:31:23PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote: > I document them the same, except that I also add use the DEP-5 "Comment" > field to indicate that it came from "B". That's a nice idea. If I claim my software distribution is licensed under the GPL, then it's natural

Re: d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

s embedding isn't removable - the reference implementation shouldn't accept changes to integrate it into a specific project. It'd be reasonable to include the original license and copyright statements. If I do, Debian requires packagers to describe the license and copyright on those embedded licens

Re: d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

files appear in d/copyright? > (Please CC me, I'm not subscribed.) Richard Laager responded but forgot to CC you, I bounced the message: I document them the same, except that I also add use the DEP-5 "Comment" field to indicate that it came from "B". -- bye,

Re: d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

I document them the same, except that I also add use the DEP-5 "Comment" field to indicate that it came from "B". -- Richard OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

d/copyright entries for licenses and copyright data

Hello, Suppose project A includes code from project B. To be good stewards of license and copyright data, A incorporates B's license and copyright files into their source distribution. How should these files appear in d/copyright? I don't see any suggestion in [1] or [2]. Thanks, Ross

Bug#1053672: Info received (Bug#1053672: Apple copyright notices in test .xlsx files)

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this Bug report. This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message has been received. Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other interested parties for their attention; they will

Re: Bug#1053672: Apple copyright notices in test .xlsx files

On Sun, 2023-10-08 at 15:04 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > Given this, why is that copyright notice there, and what does it imply > that we should do?  (E.g. does Apple Numbers automatically copy > Apple-owned items (e.g. fonts) into files it creates?  If so, is there a > w

Bug#1053672: Apple copyright notices in test .xlsx files

Source: openpyxl Version: 3.0.9-2 Severity: serious licensecheck -r --copyright . on openpyxl finds these: ./openpyxl/formatting/tests/data/conditional-formatting.xlsx: UNKNOWN [Copyright: 2007 Apple Inc.] ./openpyxl/reader/tests/data/complex-styles.xlsx: UNKNOWN [Copyright: 2007 Apple Inc

Fw: Re: [Emc-developers] Bug#1030304: Licensing & copyright issues

The quality of the reply to raising concerns about linuxcnc. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030304 > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2023 at 2:27 AM > From: "Alec Ari" > To: "Adam Ant" > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Bug#1030304: Lice

Re: FreeBSD legacy license with restrictions on copyright notice placement

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:03 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Fontana writes: > > Richard> I'm curious if there are opinions on why "must retain the > Richard> above copyright notice immediately at the beginning of t

Re: FreeBSD legacy license with restrictions on copyright notice placement

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Fontana writes: Richard> I'm curious if there are opinions on why "must retain the Richard> above copyright notice immediately at the beginning of the Richard> file" is consistent with the DFSG. This is one

FreeBSD legacy license with restrictions on copyright notice placement

Greetings debian-legal! I understand Debian includes the package libbsd in Debian main. This package includes a man page with the following license (see https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/pkgs/libbsd.git/tree/debian/copyright#n214) License: BSD-5-clause-Peter-Wemm Redistribution and use

OpenLDAP d/copyright overhaul

Hello Thorsten, You've recently rejected the OpenLDAP 2.6 upload for experimental and requested that we rewrite d/copyright. I agree with the request (that file has been abandoned for a long time), and have an almost complete replacement here. There is a problem with the contents under

Bug#1004341: mercurial-common: please add contrib/zsh_completion to d/copyright

Package: mercurial-common Version: 6.0.1-3 Severity: wishlist Tags: newcomer Dear Maintainer, Please add contrib/zsh_completion's license (lines 19:34) to debian/copyright. Thanks, Daniel P.S. I wasn't sure whether this is a wishlist bug (since the license seems to be compatible with license

Re: Copyright notice gives info on source files, not the packaged binaries -is that correct?

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:18 PM Alexander Mazuruk wrote: > I'm writing this as I've noticed that some packages have copyright file > filled with records for source code, while the package contains binaries. Essentially all packages in Debian do this, with a couple of exceptions

Re: Copyright notice gives info on source files, not the packaged binaries -is that correct?

.4 of debian policy, any distribution license that you are required to comply with needs to be placed in the copyright file in the binary package. We do tend to organize license and copyright information by source because that is convenient to us. But based on policy, if you comply with all of

Copyright notice gives info on source files, not the packaged binaries -is that correct?

Hello, I'm writing this as I've noticed that some packages have copyright file filled with records for source code, while the package contains binaries. I've CCd maintainer of one of such packages (bsdutils) I wanted to get some clarification as I couldnt find this info via googling/debian

Re: gnome-screensaver copyright issues

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:15:01AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > Are you a copyright holder of any of the code? No, that would be Jamie Zawinski, the author of XScreenSaver. > Also I looked at the alleged code segment. Yes, the comments are the > same and the code shows some re

Re: gnome-screensaver copyright issues

Hi Dennis On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0100, Dennis Filder wrote: > I recently filed #980212 against gnome-screensaver Are you a copyright holder of any of the code? Also I looked at the alleged code segment. Yes, the comments are the same and the code shows some resemblance, but

gnome-screensaver copyright issues

Hi, I recently filed #980212 against gnome-screensaver because it appears that one if its original developers copied and relicensed MIT-licensed code (from xscreensaver) as GPL-2 even though he lacked the copyright to it. The packages cinnamon-screensaver and mint-screensaver would apparently

Re: License and Copyright info for debconf translation of aide package

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:16:19 +0100 Marc Haber wrote: > Hi, Hello! > > while reviewing the aide package for writing a machine-readable > debian/copyright file, I have stumbled up on the translations. I think that paying attention to translation licenses is a good thing to do. Thank

License and Copyright info for debconf translation of aide package

Hi, while reviewing the aide package for writing a machine-readable debian/copyright file, I have stumbled up on the translations. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/aide/-/tree/master/debian/po Oh, what a mess. Most of the translatiosn don't have a license statement at all, some have correctly

Re: Copyright of debian/*

John Scott wrote... > On Saturday, January 2, 2021 10:30:56 AM EST Matthew Vernon wrote: > > I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright > > format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* > That's not good practice. You should ask the

Re: Copyright of debian/*

Hi, David Prévot writes: > Le 02/01/2021 à 11:30, Matthew Vernon a écrit : > >> I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable >> copyright format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* > > FWIW, I do that in most of the (simple) packages I’m maint

Re: Copyright of debian/*

Hi, Le 02/01/2021 à 11:30, Matthew Vernon a écrit : I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* FWIW, I do that in most of the (simple) packages I’m maintaining: I’m fine using the same license as upstream

Re: Copyright of debian/*

On Saturday, January 2, 2021 10:30:56 AM EST Matthew Vernon wrote: > I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright > format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* That's not good practice. You should ask the package maintainer to include such infor

Copyright of debian/*

Hi, I have noticed some packages using the newer machine-readable copyright format, but not specifying any copyright for debian/* To give an example based on the docs[1] Files: * Copyright: 1975-2010 Ulla Upstream License: GPL-2+ Files: docs/*.1 Copyright: 2010 Manuela Manpager License: GPL

Copyright review for Lutris

is the copyright. Lutris uses several icons, which could be not DFSG-compliant, so I wanted to ask for a legal review to clarify what is okay and what needs changes. The icons are located in /share/lutris/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps. There is a copyright.old file in the directory, which was used

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Ian Jackson: >> In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less >> clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used >> to gain permission to combine the work with an AGPL work, especially >> if this is done in an "open core" context. > > Florian, are you still

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

Florian Weimer writes ("Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission"): > Andrej Shadura: > > then it is totally fine to choose that option, since the copyright > > holders have already given that permission you think they need to

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:18:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Many authors provide conflicting license statements. It's not > unusual. In the extreme case, it makes the software undistributable > and unsuitable for Debian. I know, conflicting statements are a serious problem. But that's a

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

ter and, now, Ted want continue this development. However, Ted > kept the name "test" and changed the licensing to GPL-3+ without a > permission from previous copyright holders, that are inactive. Is > possible do it, only considering the plus signal in previous licensing &g

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

. The alternative explanation is that the FSF did something unexpected, from the author's point of view. >> I also think that in general, Debian should try to respect copyright >> holders' wishes, even if the project is not required to do so. >> Disregarding authors rarely leads

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

es written permission to upgrade to a later version but he don't really want people to do that, it looks to me like lying. He should either clarify the cases where the upgrade is not wanted, or avoid writing those permissions at all. > I also think that in general, Debian should try to respect cop

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

he development was stopped some >> years later and, now, Ted want continue this development. However, Ted >> kept the name "test" and changed the licensing to GPL-3+ without a >> permission from previous copyright holders, that are inactive. Is >> possible do i

upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

hanged the licensing to GPL-3+ without a permission from previous copyright holders, that are inactive. Is possible do it, only considering the plus signal in previous licensing (GPL-2+)? Regards, Eriberto

Re: Re: PCYNLITX and Copyright Issue

ACK, but upstream said that modified versions of project's source code are subject to US Copyright laws. -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Re: PCYNLITX and Copyright Issue

My understanding is that copyright always applies unless explicitly given up via a public domain declaration; registering with a copyright office is an *optional* step which doesn't affect the status of the work --- unregistered works are still copyrighted. The GPL license itself depends

PCYNLITX and Copyright Issue

Hello, Yesterday I filed RFP for PCYNLITX [1]. Although PCYNLITX is licensed under GPLv3, the upstream applied copyright registration to US and Turkey Copyright offices, as stated in the home page: - An application to the US Copyright office has been performed for the modified version

Re: Reply to copyright concerns for libzdb in Seafile

No need. Trying to bury the evidence deeper so to speak will just be > > construed as further attempt to cover up. A version control change > > trail will be evident, in any case, if you plan to change the code on > > Github. > > > > You have three options. a) Remove t

Re: Reply to copyright concerns for libzdb in Seafile

evident, in any case, if you plan to change the code on > Github. > > You have three options. a) Remove the infringing code, i.e. the > db-wrapper code and any other code and text that was copied such as > sections of configure.ac etc. b) Use another library if yo

Re: Reply to copyright concerns for libzdb in Seafile

nging code, i.e. the db-wrapper code and any other code and text that was copied such as sections of configure.ac etc. b) Use another library if you can find one. Or c) Add back the copyright notice from libzdb in all the db-wrapper code together with your own (as was suggested in a thread here). This

Reply to copyright concerns for libzdb in Seafile

.” [4] Libzdb is licensed under GPLv3. Copying and modifying GPL code is perfectly fine as long as the original copyright notice and license are kept. Unfortunately, this is not what the Seafile team did. Instead they copied code from libzdb, removed the copyright notice, claimed the code

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

> On 30 May 2019, at 14:48, Ian Jackson wrote: > > However, I am puzzled by something. AFAICT from github seafile-server > claims to be AGPL3-only. You are talking about a licence conflict > with libzdb which is GPL3+. > > But GPL3+ and AGPL3 are compatible. So why did the seafile

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

Andrej Shadura writes ("Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile"): > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 12:10, Moritz Schlarb wrote: > I fully agree. Since the client doesn’t include the code in question, > it’s out of scope of the issue, so there is no reason to remove it > &g

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

Jan-Henrik Haukeland writes ("Copyright concerns regarding Seafile"): > Libzdb is licensed under GPLv3. Copying and modifying GPL code is > perfectly fine as long as the original copyright notice and license > are kept. Unfortunately, this is not what the Seafile team > di

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

> On 26 May 2019, at 13:13, Andres Salomon wrote: > > I'm wondering if the way forward > here would be to ask the seafile folks to add your copyright info (as wel l > as theirs), and the GPLv3 license to the db-wrapper code, and to also > include the GPLv2 exception f

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

its/dca8f99b12ebc1a1d6397744896e6ca9836591a4> The db-wrapper code in seafile very clearly originated from libzdb, as you've pointed out. It's really not okay that they did that while stripping out your copyright and license. However, the code that originated from libzdb seems to have come from the older v

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

Dear all, as maintainer of the Seafile client packages (libsearpc, seafile and seafile-client), I would like to thank Jan-Henrik for bringing this to our attention. There have already been such findings in the past, regarding some code taken from git, and the discussion regarding libzdb in the

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

> On 13 May 2019, at 18:28, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > > Note that this list does not have any legal leverage, however. * > In case of license violations, the proper procedure is to file a bug report > against the source package(s) in question. Package maintainers will handle > that > and

Re: Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

Hi Since no one has answered so far, I feel free to chime in. * On 5/12/19 9:39 PM, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote: > > We ask Debian to consider removing and stop distributing Seafile packages [1] > due to copyright concerns. [...] First of all, thank you for your in-depth analysis and

Copyright concerns regarding Seafile

We ask Debian to consider removing and stop distributing Seafile packages [1] due to copyright concerns. Background: - Seafile is an open-source dropbox clone created by a team from China. Around 2013 they needed MySQL and PostgreSQL support and started using our open

Re: do I need to mention tiny change in copyright file

t 01:38:56PM +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Do I need to mention the person submitted 3 patches in > > debian/copyright file, containing a total of 5 lines changed in my > > package? > > > > I have attached the patches. Upstream did a notice in Ch

Re: do I need to mention tiny change in copyright file

Hi Joël, On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:38:56PM +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote: > Hi, > > Do I need to mention the person submitted 3 patches in > debian/copyright file, containing a total of 5 lines changed in my > package? > > I have attached the patches. Upstream did

do I need to mention tiny change in copyright file

Hi, Do I need to mention the person submitted 3 patches in debian/copyright file, containing a total of 5 lines changed in my package? I have attached the patches. Upstream did a notice in ChangeLog and AUTHORS as tiny change, as recommended by: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html

Re: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear

also present in the kernel [0] with an updated copyright > but still without license. The file you show (in the Linux code base) seems likely to have an equivalent implementation under a different license, from some other code base. > I received a private email from somebody in the kernel commu

Re: Fw: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear

gt; > Begin forwarded message: > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:34:13 + > > From: MJ Ray > > To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > > Subject: Re: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear > > > > > > Domenico Andreoli skribis: &g

Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear

Hallo d-l, the situation of dwarves-dfsg improved a lot over the weekend, the only knot left is now the license of hash.h This file is also present in the kernel [0] with an updated copyright but still without license. I received a private email from somebody in the kernel community who

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

Philipp Klaus Krause writes ("Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?"): > However, the files are just lists of register names and locations. So if > the files are not under copyright, I guess that copyright note could be > ignored? Yes. The ftpmasters

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

ic16f1320.inc). > > Hmm, I'm not sure these files should be in Debian main, a lot of them > say "Copyright 1999-2014 Microchip Technology, All rights reserved" > without specifying any license. However, the files are just lists of register names and locations. So

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

bian main, a lot of them say "Copyright 1999-2014 Microchip Technology, All rights reserved" without specifying any license. > For the future (i.e. post 3.7.0 release), SDCC plans to no longer ship > the .h files for PIC in the tarball. Instead they would be generated at > build-tim

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

On 01/10/2018 09:47 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Milan Kupcevic wrote: > >> It is widely held in the IT industry, and in technical industries in >> general, that interface descriptions and definitions can not be legally >> protected as that would stop development and

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > Problem: Hardware vendors want to impose non-free terms on the header > files (via a copyright claim on the files that the headers were > generated from). I think we need more details. Are the files the headers were gener

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Milan Kupcevic wrote: > It is widely held in the IT industry, and in technical industries in > general, that interface descriptions and definitions can not be legally > protected as that would stop development and production of compatible > replacement parts by

Re: Are register names and locations under copyright?

Hi Philipp, On 01/10/2018 08:11 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: [...] > > Problem: Hardware vendors want to impose non-free terms on the header > files (via a copyright claim on the files that the headers were > generated from). I'm not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice.

Are register names and locations under copyright?

, SDCC already has such files (e.g. https://sourceforge.net/p/sdcc/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/sdcc/device/non-free/include/pic16/pic18f1320.h). Problem: Hardware vendors want to impose non-free terms on the header files (via a copyright claim on the files that the headers were generated from

Re: Anki logo copyright question

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:22:20PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > = > > > > Anki's logo is copyright Alex Fraser, and is licensed under the AGPL3 > > like the rest of Anki's code, but with extra provisions to allow more > > liberal use of the logo under l

Re: Anki logo copyright question

> = > > Anki's logo is copyright Alex Fraser, and is licensed under the AGPL3 > like the rest of Anki's code, but with extra provisions to allow more > liberal use of the logo under limited conditions. I read this as a dual licence. That is, the user may, at their option

Re: Anki logo copyright question

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:27:00PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Under the following conditions, Anki's logo may be included in blogs, > > newspaper articles, books, videos and other such material about Anki. > > These actions would seem to already be licensed by the AGPLv3, without > these

Re: Anki logo copyright question

cannot work out whether these make the use more restrictive > or less I share your confusion. The conditions applied certainly are more restrictive than the AGPLv3 conditions. Yet the author of the preamble clearly intends that this grants “more liberal” license. > = > > Anki's lo

Anki logo copyright question

would be welcomed. = Anki's logo is copyright Alex Fraser, and is licensed under the AGPL3 like the rest of Anki's code, but with extra provisions to allow more liberal use of the logo under limited conditions. Under the following conditions, Anki's logo may be included in blogs, newspaper

Re: Re: KJV Bible - Crown Copyright in UK [was: Bug#338077: ITP: sword-text-kvj -- King James Version with Strongs Numbers and Morphology]

Y'all allow spam through bible apps? Sent from my iPhone

Open source files without copyright holder

[ Note the cross-posting... ] Hi debian-legal, The COPYING.md file of rdma-core [1] says: "Refer to individual files for information on the copyright holders." but some files (e.g. ibacm/man/ibacm.1) do not specify a copyright holder. The copyright holder grants the user additio

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

Dear Debian Legal Team, Thank you very much for your help. I've read each email in this thread with care, and at last can consider this issue closed. On 9 June 2017 at 02:27, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On 06/08/2017 06:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >> >> I'd prefer

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

On 06/08/2017 06:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: I'd prefer not to, because Message-ID reveals what I consider private information (IP address or client hostname) to an unbounded audience, and I believe that this is a greater privacy violation than the lintian warning against downloading a

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

hese ones: > > * Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:15:58 +1000 > From: Trent Buck <trentb...@gmail.com> > > * Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:24:01 -0700 > From: Michael Olson <mwol...@gnu.org> > > * Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:57:49 +0200 > From: Julien Danjou &

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

lson <mwol...@gnu.org> * Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:57:49 +0200 From: Julien Danjou <a...@debian.org> > How important is this updated copyright? It's important to include explicit grant of specific license in writing from all copyright holders. > Do I need to worry about gettin

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

gt; It'd be better IMO if it included each message's Message-ID field, or > some other URI for each message so that the parties in the conversation > can later verify that it matches their own record of the discussion. > > Are there messages in that file that could be removed? I typically try

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

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Ben Finney writes ("Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright > in adopted package"): > > Are there messages in that file that could be removed? I typically > > try to get a single

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

Ben Finney writes ("Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package"): > Are there messages in that file that could be removed? I typically try > to get a single message from the copyright holder, that contains an > explicit and unambiguous grant of

Re: zstd: PATENTS application to copyright

Jeff Epler writes ("Re: zstd: PATENTS application to copyright"): > Apparently, > https://github.com/facebook/zstd > https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE > https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/PATENTS > > Contents of .../LICENSE of this date: >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >