Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > > One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > > permission for a recipient to license the work to third partie

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION] [Apache 2.0]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: Finally the upstream maintainers of the nauty software suite has adopted the Apache 2.0 License. [1] Thanks a lot for your constructive comments, Jerome [1] http://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION] [Apache 2.0]

Jerome BENOIT writes: > Finally the upstream maintainers of the nauty software suite has adopted > the Apache 2.0 License. [1] > > Thanks a lot for your constructive comments, Excellent news! Thank you for your diligence and congratulations on this good result. -- \

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > Knoppix needs: > > > > - permission from upstream for Knoppix modify and redistribute the > > modified ver

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under > the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3. Such a subl

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION]

Jerome BENOIT writes: > Finally I get a feed back from the upstream. Thank you, Jerome, for engaging the copyright holders effectively to improve the freedom of software recipients. > Please find below the new version: what do you think ? > […] > [[Modified versions of

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum. Finally I get a feed back from the upstream. Please find below the new version: what do you think ? Thanks, Jerome - This is the [[license]] for the

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0100 (CET) Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: > > >> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > >> clarify their Copyright. > > > > I know you were asking Ben, but really,

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: thanks a lot for your constructive comments. On 12/03/16 04:37, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : >> Jerome BENOIT writes: >> >>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

What enforcement actions can you possibly see arising from this? On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:16:43 -0500 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > So who bears the exposure to litigation or > enforcement actions? > -tony > > On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > > I know you were asking

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to clarify their Copyright. I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP masters reject

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

So who bears the exposure to litigation or enforcement actions? -tony On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP masters reject it, you can deal with the

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

> > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in > > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. > > > Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > clarify their Copyright. I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: On 12/03/16 03:39, Ben Finney wrote: > Jerome BENOIT writes: > >> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: >>> That licence is fine. >>> >> So now step forward in peace. > > Before achieving peace, please see the

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Jerome BENOIT writes: > > > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: > > > That licence is fine. > > > > > So now step forward in peace. > > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in >

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

> One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under > the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3. I think that you're misinterpreting DFSG §3. A user needs the right to distribute the work such that the people

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Jerome BENOIT writes: > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: > > That licence is fine. > > > So now step forward in peace. Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. -- \ “I have had a perfectly

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that the

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Ben Finney writes: > Permission is hereby given for the use, distribution and > modification of this software subject to the following. > * You must include this copyright notice with all distributed > copies of this software, including modified copies. > *

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Jerome BENOIT writes: > [1] https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nauty.html > [2] http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/nauty/COPYRIGHT.txt It is very helpful to have the verbatim text of the license in the discussion thread for reference. Here is the content of the

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

> >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new > >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. > >> > >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that > >> the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant. That licence is fine.

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: On 11/03/16 13:47, MJ Ray wrote: > Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. >> >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Jerome BENOIT wrote: > One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright > notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. > > I am considering to migrate it to main: > please can you confirm that the new copyright notice is effectively > DFSG-conformant. Unless I'm going blind

ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that the new copyright notice is effectively