Re: advice on non-free NXP Software License Agreement

ual lawyer review has how shall we say been variable for a variety of factors. Johannes> The non-free binary blobs covered by this license apply to Johannes> popular platforms like the IMX8MQ (which is used by the Johannes> purism librem5 phone and the mnt reform laptop) as we

Re: advice on non-free NXP Software License Agreement

reement and whether binaries licensed under it > Johannes> are redistributable in non-free(-firmware) or not. The > Johannes> full text is at the end of this email. I think the > Johannes> interesting parts are in 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. If I'm reading > Johannes> this correctly

Re: Expat license and "free for academic users"

Hi all, Thank you for your prompt responses. On 2023-06-22 17:49, Sam Hartman wrote: I mean under xpat, it's certainly free for academic users, and it's also free for everyone else. Unless that statement in the readme is in a section called license or otherwise claims to be a license, I'd

Re: Expat license and "free for academic users"

>>>>> "Andrius" == Andrius Merkys writes: Andrius> Hello, [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed] Andrius> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Andrius> Expat and has the following in its README.md: Andrius&

Re: advice on non-free NXP Software License Agreement

>>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes: Johannes> Dear Debian legal, I seek advice on the NXP Software Johannes> License Agreement and whether binaries licensed under it Johannes> are redistributable in non-free(-firmware) o

advice on non-free NXP Software License Agreement

Dear Debian legal, I seek advice on the NXP Software License Agreement and whether binaries licensed under it are redistributable in non-free(-firmware) or not. The full text is at the end of this email. I think the interesting parts are in 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. If I'm reading this correctly

Re: Expat license and "free for academic users"

Francesco Poli writes: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote: >> >> [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed] >> >> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has >> the following in its README.md: >>

Re: Expat license and "free for academic users"

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote: > Hello, Hi! > > [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed] Done. > > I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has > the following in its README.md: > > "EvoEF2 is free t

Expat license and "free for academic users"

Hello, [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed] I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has the following in its README.md: "EvoEF2 is free to academic users." To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat license, but I wonder what is

Not going to enforce the license? Pick a more lax, permissive free software license.

the four essential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validly placed in the public domain, it is not free software. Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public domain[1]. That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable works

Re: hfsprogs is not DFSG-Free

Discussion thread on d-legal: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2020/04/msg1.html)

Re: hfsprogs is not DFSG-Free

Hello! I have done some research and I do not think that the claim that this software is not dfsg-free is correct. First of all, the license claimed in debian/copyright is incorrect. The upstream package that hfsprogs is based on - diskdev_cmds-332.25 [1] - is not covered by the APSL-2.0

Re: Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

Actually the redacted link [https://cliapp.store/apps/transity/] says it is paid product. So in this case the bad intent you mentioned apply. -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

* Andrej Shadura: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:48, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> >> But again I say that this program is GPL-licensed, but it can be used >> freely (of charge) for non commercial purposes only, but proprietary >> (one must purchase license) for commercial use. >> >> So I think this

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

Em sexta-feira, 20 de dezembro de 2019, Bagas Sanjaya escreveu: > > Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge >> at non-profits and for evaluation. For long-term usage, however, please >> make sure to purchase a license at [link red

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

On 15622 March 1977, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity], a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger. However, when I saw the README, it says: Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge at non-profits

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

restriction > contradict each other. It was also rejected from non-free > (undistributable software). > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00271.html > >

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

other. It was also rejected from non-free (undistributable software). https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00271.html

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

How can I contact FTP masters team for asking this issue? I prefer not via IRC. On 20/12/19 17.43, Andrej Shadura wrote: Hi, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 11:42 Bagas Sanjaya, <mailto:bagasdo...@gmail.com>> wrote: So is it DFSG-Free and can be included in Debian main? On 20/12

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

So is it DFSG-Free and can be included in Debian main? On 20/12/19 17.05, Andrej Shadura wrote: Hi, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:48, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: But again I say that this program is GPL-licensed, but it can be used freely (of charge) for non commercial purposes only, but proprietary

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity], a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger. However, when I saw the README, it says: Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge at non-profits and for evaluation

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

* On 12/20/19 9:59 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity], > a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger. > > However, when I saw the README, it says: > >> Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can b

Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

Hello, Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity], a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger. However, when I saw the README, it says: Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge at non-profits and for evaluation. For long-term

Re: Why CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses are DFSG-free?

* On 8/18/19 10:02 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > [...] and not > NC and ND variant ones? I had tried to find the explanation on this > mailing list, but seems like there is nothing found. In very short: the NC part conflicts with point 6: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", because it

Why CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses are DFSG-free?

Hello, I'd like to know why CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses are DFSG-free, and not NC and ND variant ones? I had tried to find the explanation on this mailing list, but seems like there is nothing found. Cheers, Bagas -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Re: Content Rating System - DFSG-free?

Is this an issue relating to the software license, or just to the general spirit of the DFSG? It would be nice if the rating system could be opt-in, warning based, easy to opt out of, etc. But as long as the software is Free, users can recompile it without the rating system... The point being

Content Rating System - DFSG-free?

ich rated for teen, the CRS system will reject the installation, and thus restrict the package from being used by children. What are your opinions/thoughts/positions about CRS and is it DFSG-free, in sense of usage? Regards, Bagas.

Re: Free Software Guidelines Question

en getting more and > more requests to release a Debian package to help our customers interface > with our hardware in the Debian environment. That's interesting and good to hear: I hope you are going to satisfy the needs of your customers in the best possible way. [...] > We have no is

Re: Free Software Guidelines Question

probably want to submit to qualified lawyers if you want to act on it. Il 04/04/19 07:59, Wade Pinkston ha scritto: > So my question is this- Is there a way to release a free software > package for Debian, but maintain IP rights to it?, or at least make the > code unavailable. If

Re: Free Software Guidelines Question

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:15 PM Wade Pinkston wrote: > My company manufactures high-end IR sensors, IR Quadrant detectors, IR PSDs, > and associated electronics. ... > Is there a way to release a free software package for Debian, but maintain IP > rights to it? >From the perspect

Re: Free Software Guidelines Question

n the Debian environment. We have had a solid in-house > Debian program going for quite awhile now in order to test various > electronic accessories such as ADC and DAQ boards for the various MPU and > MCU boards out there. We have no issue with offering a free software > package usable i

Free Software Guidelines Question

with our hardware in the Debian environment. We have had a solid in-house Debian program going for quite awhile now in order to test various electronic accessories such as ADC and DAQ boards for the various MPU and MCU boards out there. We have no issue with offering a free software package usable

Re: Is the pixabay license a free license as per DFSG?

dom wrote: > > It seems pixabay has now changed its license - it used to be CC0 > > Is the new license a Debian compatible "free" license - i.e. something > Debian would recognise as following the Debian Free Software > Guidelines ? > > https://pixabay.com/en/servi

Is the pixabay license a free license as per DFSG?

It seems pixabay has now changed its license - it used to be CC0 Is the new license a Debian compatible "free" license - i.e. something Debian would recognise as following the Debian Free Software Guidelines ? https://pixabay.com/en/service/terms/#license Reproduced the license from

Re: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

Martin Hanson writes: > I have posted this bug report > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806 that has been > rejected by the maintainer. > > Maybe I have misunderstood the issue completely, but I do have some > experience with legal issues and

Re: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:28:07 +0200 Martin Hanson wrote: > I have posted this bug report > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806 > that has been rejected by the maintainer. [...] While I see a possible privacy issue in using the Google public DNS servers, I am under the

Re: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

On 04/30/2018 02:28 AM, Martin Hanson wrote: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806 > Maybe I have misunderstood the issue completely, but I do have some > experience with legal issues and AFAIK, there IS a problem here. Effective 25 May 2018 it _might_ be a GDPR violation,

systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

I have posted this bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806 that has been rejected by the maintainer. Maybe I have misunderstood the issue completely, but I do have some experience with legal issues and AFAIK, there IS a problem here. I am posting this to the

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which > automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances. > > The obvious example is web browsers with extension repositories > containing bo

Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I would like to establish a way to prevent this. Why would the project do that, though? > (There are even whole Debian derivatives who have as one of their > primary goals, preventing this. Good. > We should aim for most of the

Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

This mail is going to a lot of lists. I have set the followups to d-policy because ultimately this is hopefully going to result in a change to policy. Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances

Re: clementine: installs non-free plugin at runtime

Anthony DeRobertis writes ("Re: clementine: installs non-free plugin at runtime"): > I think it'd be reasonable to make the confirmation dialog explicitly > say that the plugin is not free software. But other than that, which > does not warrant severity: serious, I think this b

Re: clementine: installs non-free plugin at runtime

(from Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> via the bug): > One of several functions of Clementine is to stream audio from cloud > service Spotify. Initially selecting that function triggers a routine > where Clementine (asks for concent and then) downloads and installs a > non-

Re: does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?

hi Ian, all, On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: I know that in some other cases upstreams have been persuaded to change such licence conditions into non-binding imprecations. In this case that would make the resulting software GPL-compatible, which would be very nice. Perhaps upstream

Re: does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?

Hi, debian-science. debian-legal had a query about a program which had a citation requirement in its licence. See below. What's our usual approach ? Boud Roukema writes ("does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?"): > I would like to use the MUSIC cosmolo

does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?

not to use MUSIC until/if it's free-licensed.] The problem is that the licence: https://bitbucket.org/ohahn/music/src/a2f902247a6e8ffb4cddd085f52b8a4024ad8b24/LICENSE i. has "All rights reserved", which sounds like a clear intention to state that anything not explicitly permitted is for

Re: Wily may be non-free

Jacob Adams writes: > I've now filed a bug (#872866) but, given the current state of the > wily package, I decided to set the severity to serious. That sounds fine, thank you for submitting that report. -- \ “I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use

Re: Wily may be non-free

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:50:34AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > That seems pretty clearly non-free to be, but as it's currently in > > Debian, I figured I would ask here before filing an RM bug against > > wily. > > I think you can make a bug report to discuss the matter.

Re: Wily may be non-free

Jacob Adams <tookm...@gmail.com> writes: > It is currently in debian main, but appears to be non-free. Thank you for drawing attention to this. > However, it includes two libraries that are compiled into the final > executable, libframe and libXg. Both these libraries contain

Wily may be non-free

I was looking into the packages NMUed by reproducible builds and stumbled across wily. It is currently in debian main, but appears to be non-free. According to d/copyright it is covered by the Artistic license [1]. However, it includes two libraries that are compiled into the final executable

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Hi Paul, On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:19:16AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > Do you think it's ok to internally provide backwards compatibility? > > eg, for a library, newname provides/fulfils oldname, for a long period > > of

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Hi Ian, On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:27:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves writes ("advice for free software package named almost > identically to non-free software"): > > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > > propriet

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:52:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > > proprietary piece of software. > > I think it would be best to pro-actively rename the software now >

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Nicholas D Steeves writes ("advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software"): > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > proprietary piece of software. Both the free and the proprietary > software are developed in the U

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Do you think it's ok to internally provide backwards compatibility? > eg, for a library, newname provides/fulfils oldname, for a long period > of time...perhaps a year. I'm trying to think of all the non-Debian > users who would also

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:52:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > > proprietary piece of software. > > I think it would be best to pro-actively rename the software now >

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > proprietary piece of software. I think it would be best to pro-actively rename the software now rather than wait until renaming the software would be more painful. Even

advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Dear Debian Legal, An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a proprietary piece of software. Both the free and the proprietary software are developed in the U.S.A. The upstream has confirmed that the name is not a registered trademark in the U.S.A, but the proprietary

Serving manpages of non-free packages?

Hey, (please CC me in replies as I’m not subscribed) I was wondering if it would be okay for manpages.debian.org to serve manpages of packages from non-free? Is this something we could just generally do, or are there any restrictions? Does including a link to the copyright file of the package

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

2016-10-22 14:55 Paul Tagliamonte : | Quote me on this: | | ISC meets the DFSG, with my ftp hat on. Thanks Paul for confirming. Other can now found the infor at https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#ISC_license Jari

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

Quote me on this: ISC meets the DFSG, with my ftp hat on. On Oct 22, 2016 12:46 PM, "Ben Finney" wrote: > Jari Aalto writes: > > > Excellent summary Ben. > > Thank you for saying so. > > > Do you think, if it would be good if I added note about ISC

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

Hi Jari, On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Jari Aalto wrote: Do you think, if it would be good if I added note about ISC license to the Debian License information page[1] and point it to this thread for future reference? yes, please do. I wonder why nobody has done that before. Thanks! Thorsten

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

Jari Aalto writes: > Excellent summary Ben. Thank you for saying so. > Do you think, if it would be good if I added note about ISC license to > the Debian License information page[1] and point it to this thread for > future reference? No, I think my assessment is one

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

2016-10-21 22:42 Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>: | Jari Aalto <jari.aa...@cante.net> writes: | | > The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code | > appears to have moved under ISC License[1] | | > [1] http://webglimpse.net/sublicensing/licensing.html | All r

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

Jari Aalto <jari.aa...@cante.net> writes: > The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code > appears to have moved under ISC License[1] Thank you for including the full text of the grant of license, and the license conditions. > [1] http://webglimpse.net/sublicensing

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

At least one package in Debian main, xombrero, has files listed in debian/copyright as "License: ISC". (it is orphaned, but the reasons are unrelated to the license) http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/x/xombrero/unstable_copyright Jeff

Re: Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

On 21/10/16 11:31, Jari Aalto wrote: > The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code > appears to have moved under ISC License[1] and I'd like to know > if the code can now be moved to main. Yes. -- Cheers, Andrew

Is ISC License considered DFSG free?

Der Debian legal mailing list members, The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code appears to have moved under ISC License[1] and I'd like to know if the code can now be moved to main. Here is test recorded to SPDX database[2]: ISC License: Copyright (c) 2004-2010

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

* Yaroslav Halchenko: > Would you consider this short custom license DFSG-free and > compatible for reuse/integration within projects under more > permissive (MIT/BSD) or copyleft licenses such as GPL. (do not want > to burden/prime you with my analysis). > // 4. If anyt

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

Yaroslav Halchenko <deb...@onerussian.com> writes: > Would you consider this short custom license DFSG-free The Debian project doesn't consider licenses in isolation. The relevant question is “Do recipients of *this specific work* have full exercise of their software freedoms?” You'r

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

s. > > > > ok -- playing devil's advocate (just a phrase, I am not of that > > opinion > > about the upstream ;)) -- nothing there states about connectivity > > (Internet) or media (digitized, printed) how they must be made > > accessible.  Could be via mail, bottle

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

via mail, bottle in the ocean, ... In addition to the reply by Paul, there is also another common way to explain why this is not DFSG-free: It fails the "The Desert Island test": https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html So I guess bottles in the ocean were already considered and do not count as "making it accesible to the author". Thanks.

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:56:22AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have been > //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible to the > //original author(s). Fails the Desert Island Test:

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

pabs is right. This would fail On Oct 4, 2016 9:45 AM, "Yaroslav Halchenko" wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > > > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments > have been >

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

2016-10-04 15:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Wise : > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: >> ok -- playing devil's advocate (just a phrase, I am not of that opinion >> about the upstream ;)) -- nothing there states about connectivity >> (Internet) or media (digitized,

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > >> > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have >> > been >> > //altered in the code, the modified

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have > > been > > //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible to the > > //original author(s).

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have been > //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible to the > //original author(s). This is impossible to comply with for those who do

would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

Dear Debian IANALs, Would you consider this short custom license DFSG-free and compatible for reuse/integration within projects under more permissive (MIT/BSD) or copyleft licenses such as GPL. (do not want to burden/prime you with my analysis). // This software is published under the terms

Re: Bug#838414: gpick: colors.txt is non-free

Hello, On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Elías Alejandro writes: > >> Could you review this issue? > > What kind of review are you asking for? What new information has > appeared that prompts a review? > > For what it's worth, I agree

Re: Bug#838414: gpick: colors.txt is non-free

Elías Alejandro writes: > Could you review this issue? What kind of review are you asking for? What new information has appeared that prompts a review? For what it's worth, I agree with the earlier assessment that the restriction on usage violates DFSG §6. Further, the term

Re: Bug#838414: gpick: colors.txt is non-free

ol in Debian! > > I noticed that the license for file share/gpick/colors.txt fails > to meet the DFSG, as it includes at least one non-free restriction. > Clause 5 states: > > | 5. These RGB colour formulations may not be used to the detriment of > | Resene Paints Ltd. > > This i

Re: Can "PDB" license be considered free ?

. The text also says Data files contained in the PDB archive (ftp://ftp.wwpdb.org) are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. So I suspect that this is yet-another case of confusion about what copyright m

Re: Can "PDB" license be considered free ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:38:55PM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016, Peter Rice wrote: > > The conclusion was that scientific data (SwissProt, PDB, etc.) are > > scientific facts and it is not reasonable to require permission to > >

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:20:21 -0500 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23:22PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion? > > Without looking further into it (anyone have a source package I can look > at?), any license that

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

s with > the same licence. > > The files and files derived from them are in other packages as well. I know: We had netscape in main. (Now, no more) We had afio in main (Recently it is in non-free) We have moved many RFC and some of the GNU info to non-free. We still have

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

[I sent this before, but it seems it did not go through.] It has been a while since your last response. Have you looked further into it?

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:20:21 -0500 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23:22PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion? > > Without looking further into it [...] > any license that restricts use to only that of

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

> In that copyright file I see an email (did anyone followup)? The email you are referring to seems to be for files other than the ones in question; also, the files referred to in the email are under the copyright of W3C, while the files in question are under the copyright of ISO.

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

In that copyright file I see an email (did anyone followup)? At 12:51 PM 3/22/99 -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: >Hello. I have the responsibility of assessing the current copyright >of W3C DTDs accompanying your specifications, on behalf of the Debian >project .

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

> [C]an someone reply with a bad source package (or d/copyright file) > that we can evaluate in main? Here is sgml-data's copyright file: . Here is the source of sgml-data:

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:20:21PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > I'm cc'ing the rest of the ftp-master team; can someone reply with a bad > source > package (or d/copyright file) that we can evaluate in main? (actually cc'ing them now) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

ard (and not modification nor derived works) is not fit for main. I've seen similar stuff out of IETF-land (RFCs are non-free by default because of a simialr restriction), and somewhere else. I've totally seen this type of stuff in NEW before. I have been rejecting them. Stuff like Unicode docs, too, IIRC.

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:39:19 +0100 stresswa...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > > Please note that IANADD, I am just a Debian external contributor. > > I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP > > Masters: please contact them, if you want to know their opinion. > > How would I

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

> Please note that IANADD, I am just a Debian external contributor. > I don't speak on behalf of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP > Masters: please contact them, if you want to know their opinion. How would I contact them? > Among other things, I noticed that also fbreader includes files

Re: Non-Free SGML entity files

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 07:32:46 +0100 stresswa...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the > sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the > sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence: > > 'Permission to copy in any

Non-Free SGML entity files

The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence: 'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879

Non-Free SGML entity files

The package sgml-data includes non-Free files in the sgml/entities/sgml-iso-entities*/ directories and the sgml/html/entities/ directory under the following licence: 'Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with conforming SGML systems and applications as defined in ISO 8879

non free broadcom-sta-dkms_6.30.223.248-3_all.deb for wireless driver bmc4313

First time use non-free.I do not know nothing how must used.I can use this driver bcm4313 Sorry. I tray install driver wireless bcm4313. I install in easy in ubuntu 15.10 but have problem with debian. The non-free do no understand if i can use. broadcom-sta-dkms_6.30.223.248-3_all.deb

Re: non free broadcom-sta-dkms_6.30.223.248-3_all.deb for wireless driver bmc4313

On 30/10/15 01:05, Gabriel Tachtatzis wrote: First time use non-free.I do not know nothing how must used.I can use this driver bcm4313 Sorry. I tray install driver wireless bcm4313. I install in easy in ubuntu 15.10 but have problem with debian. The non-free do no understand if i can use

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >