Hi Rodrigo,
the samples that you have sent look fine and are inline with the general
usage permissions as granted by the Debian trademark policy at
https://www.debian.org/trademark.en.html
Kind regards,
Daniel
for the Debian treasurers
Am 10.05.24 um 09:02 schrieb Rodrigo Vega Cruz:
Rodrigo Vega Cruz writes:
> Hi!
>
> So, just to make it clear and clarify that I have understood
> correctly, I just have to include in my webpage Legal/Terms of Service
> that the products using the Debian logo follow the CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, right?
According
Hi!
So, just to make it clear and clarify that I have understood correctly, I
just have to include in my webpage Legal/Terms of Service that the products
using the Debian logo follow the *CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported*, right?
Thanks in advance,
BR,
Rodrigo.
El dom, 5
Rodrigo Vega Cruz writes:
> Dear Debian Team,
> I hope this message finds you well. My name is Rodrigo, and I am writing to
> seek your permission to use the Debian logo on a
> series of themed merchandise, specifically t-shirts. These products are
> intended for sale and will feature both your
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:49:07 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote:
[...]
Hello again.
Hi!
I'm still pondering about this issue and now have a different approach:
Currently torque 2.4.16 is in main, so i take it for granted that it's
license is DFSG compatible, otherwise it wouldn't be there(at least
(Simon, please remember to respond interleaved as normal for email.)
Simon Kainz ska...@debian.org writes:
Currently torque 2.4.16 is in main, so i take it for granted that it's
license is DFSG compatible, otherwise it wouldn't be there(at least it
would't for such a long time).
Best not to
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote:
[...]
Hello!
Hi!
Sorry for the delay
No problem.
and thank you very much for your efforts.
You're welcome... :-)
Am 2014-02-15 00:03, schrieb Francesco Poli:
[...]
I don't know whether this clause can be really called an
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote:
I agree, that if Torque would be under GPL, it would be much easier
to package it for Debian(and we won't have this thread)
There are clear benefits for the copyright holder, also: The GNU
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:05:42PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
This is why the Free Software Foundation makes efforts to produce a
*General* Public License; one which can be generally applied to software
works, instead of inflating the number of incompatible licenses out there.
Tangent: 'GPL' was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello!
Sorry for the delay and thank you very much for your efforts.
Am 2014-02-15 00:03, schrieb Francesco Poli:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:39:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
3. Redistributions in any
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:39:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
to obtain
complete source code for TORQUE and any modifications and/or additions
to
TORQUE. The
Am Do 13 Feb 2014 12:24:20 schrieb Simon Kainz:
I'd now kindly ask this list to take a look on the license file [1]
(only 84 lines :-) ) and tell me if this license prohibits packaging
torque 4.2.6.1 for Debian, which we are otherwise planning to do.
This license permits
- tse and
Simon Kainz si...@familiekainz.at writes:
I'd now kindly ask this list to take a look on the license file [1]
(only 84 lines :-) ) and tell me if this license prohibits packaging
torque 4.2.6.1 for Debian, which we are otherwise planning to do.
It's helpful to include the license text here,
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
=
TORQUE v2.5+ Software License v1.1
Copyright (c) 2010-2011 Adaptive Computing Enterprises, Inc. All rights
reserved.
Use this license to use or redistribute the TORQUE software v2.5+ and later
versions.
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to
obtain
complete source code for TORQUE and any modifications and/or additions to
TORQUE. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be
Hi Eric,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:20:22PM -0800, Eric Shattow wrote:
I seek clarification on how closely cdrtools-3.0 meets the Debian Free
Software Guidelines.
Web: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/cdrecord.html
Tarball: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/cdrtools-3.00.tar.gz
Would an
El lun, 27-10-2008 a las 12:18 +0100, Richard Hartmann escribió:
Hi all,
there has been a thread about the use of certain Spanish media CDs to
replace non-free artwork [1].
Can anyone who actually understands Spanish chip in on the DSFG-freeness
of the licence below?
The license states
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:38, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license states total freedom for the binaries, but it doesn't say
anything about the sources. Here goes a quick translation:
Thanks.
So, more info about the sources of DIV32RUN.DLL is needed in order to
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs
free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how
to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF
what
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso writes:
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK?
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jordi
Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
the largest collection of
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:10:36 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[...]
Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.
Indeed: see the last sentence of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html
[...]
FSF:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
meet
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need
or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG,
so the documentation was made available in non-free.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
the largest
On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of
GFDLed documentation even for manpages without
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The
On 26/05/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
Oops, sorry. I forget. Other
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as
they need to be
The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and
that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the
case for the FDL, and
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:15:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose
descriptive parts could be
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes
must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with
taking part of a work under a different license and combining it
with the GPL work to distribute.
This is true only, of
On 25/05/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and
unnecessary is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that
comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs,
documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I keep hearing about how
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
I thought of using the Boost license:
http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
but it is not listed at:
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
Debian does not agree with the FSF opinion on this. The FSF's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
If this is the same company which is licensing its software under a dual
GPL-and-proprietary model, I think it probably makes the most sense for
your company to simply license the manual under the GPL. This means
that your
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that
are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
If you re-read that section, it mostly addresses the FSF's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
As long as you do not use these optional clauses it is free like any
other DFSG license.
OTOH, you should ask yourself what is
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
on wants to license its
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote:
The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation.
(I assume you meant GFDL here instead of DFSG.)
Ben Finney wrote:
Andrew Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd really like to adopt a new manual, but it's by someone we can't
contact, and it's under a custom licence:
Redistribution of unaltered copies of this document is permitted without
restriction. Distribution of altered copies is
Andrew Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
Andrew Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Redistribution of unaltered copies of this document is permitted
without restriction. Distribution of altered copies is permitted
without restriction as long as the alteration does not
On Wed, 2 May 2007 19:57:25 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 11:13:48 Andrew Sidwell wrote:
[...]
Distribution of all other altered
copies is permitted as long as credit for previous authors is
maintained, the contact information is replaced with that of the
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 11:13:48 Andrew Sidwell wrote:
Redistribution of unaltered copies of this document is permitted without
restriction. Distribution of altered copies is permitted without
restriction as long as the alteration does not significantly alter the
content (For example,
Andrew Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd really like to adopt a new manual, but it's by someone we can't
contact, and it's under a custom licence:
Redistribution of unaltered copies of this document is permitted without
restriction. Distribution of altered copies is permitted without
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:25 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I still don't see the problem.
First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all
bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is
not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all
bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is
not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.
Neither do licenses, which are distributed
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
What I'm saying is that the DFSG can only be applied to a certain point.
We can require that license terms applied to works are DFSG-free. We can
require that license terms applied to those licenses-as-works are
DFSG-free. We can require that the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:44:30AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts
to be violating the social contract.
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:32 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
What are you talking about?
Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is to consider a request for a GR that
would add language to the DFSG saying that licenses need not be
modifiable. :)
If by legal composition of copyright you mean license texts
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no
disagreement on this?
It is irrelevant, because of several reasons that have already been
pointed out in this
On 23/04/07, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts to
be violating the social contract. I don't think anyone ever will
consider that to be the case, either.
That's how I felt too about non-modifiable personal opinions, but
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
because they do not have those same
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered free. It says that
the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
free.
The context of that statement is the GPL as
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:30 +0200, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
Easy. DFSG §3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
neither
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:13 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
also be avoided if we want readers to take the spirit of
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
component of the system as is the
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are
non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Is there any package in Debian which includes a license that is not
being distributed as the terms of use and
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rather
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
:)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that
are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not as
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, consider DFSG §10:
The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of
licenses that we consider free.
Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
(relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
we'd have
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts
to be violating the social contract.
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
--
\
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
not ... something the social contract cares about. That's not at all
clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
promise, which has no
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:35:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
The *perceived* problem with the GPL is that the FSF has forbidden
modified versions to mention the name GPL, the FSF, or carry Richard's
pre-ramble (sic :-).
The grant of permissions is awkwardly given in the GPL FAQ:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue):
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where a licence text accompanies a package it must, as a matter of
law, be unchangeable.
This would hold even if the license on the GPL document permitted any
kind of modification. Those modifications would not change the license
terms under which
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:30:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being
distributed in Debian against the Social
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
component of the system as is the media the system is
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing
/ freeness issue):
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
modification are non-free
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
being used as a
* Ian Jackson:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have
worked to
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is.
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that
the license texts which have
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ. There's a difference between
changing the license for a work (impossible)
Ian Jackson wrote:
If this is forced to a GR we should have an option along these
lines:
We note that many license texts are copyrighted works, licensed only
under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation of derivative
license texts.
We do not consider this a problem.
Although not my
Don Armstrong wrote:
I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to
specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which
specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately
may be worth some thought.
Unfortunatly, the currently proposed
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes, as some of it is based on guessing how
still-changing legal systems are developing, or how particular licensors
will react to our actions.
At least twice,
Nathanael Nerode writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text
licensing / freeness issue):
Alternate suggested GR text:
---
The Debian Project notes that many license texts are copyrighted
works, licensed only under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:06:22 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes,
[...]
Licences are another type of greyness: unlike Mozilla's software, it's
very easy to
Hello,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal
documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived
works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed. This is a
compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion:
that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are
non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian
against the Social Contract.
License texts which are being
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GPL/LGPL addressed in an earlier thread.]
The Academic Free License does not have
permission to modify. The LaTeX Project Public License does not have
permission to modify.
I think AFL is not a DFSG-free licence because of its excessive
Mutual
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:51:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but
I've usually disagreed with them.
I'm afraid you then think that you
MJ Ray wrote:
There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
Care to craft another solution? [...]
No, I've no interest
You just did craft
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
MJ Ray wrote:
There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
Care
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
Most? I thought most licence texts were covered
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
