Joyent
Node.js open source or commercial project.
Is that right ? are there more changes to do to stay DFSG ?
Regards,
Jérémy Lal
[0]
http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nodejs.html
[1]
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libnodesearchon=namessuite=unstablesection=all
[2]
http://nodejs.org
Hi,
following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
is it still DFSG ?
Regards,
Jérémy.
MIT +no-false-attribs License
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the Software), to deal in the Software
On 24/01/2012 01:51, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Jérémy Lal wrote:
following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
License proliferation is bad, please help get rid of it by asking
upstream to switch to a standard license.
I will, and concur. But knowing upstream i
On 24/01/2012 15:24, MJ Ray wrote:
Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com
following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
is it still DFSG ?
If it just this one addition:
Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used
by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software
On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of Debian
Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's working. The
fact that npm is not in the distro
On 10/03/2012 01:23, Ben Finney wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
On 09/03/2012 23:14, Ben Finney wrote:
On 06/03/2012 19:20, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
In other words, if the terms of this license keep npm out of
Debian Stable, or any particular distro, then that means it's
Hi,
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On 17/03/2012 01:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
That page contains more than one question.
If i can tell the author here's a known license
On 17/03/2012 16:14, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an
eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you
want to with the software. Its an eccentric
On 17/03/2012 11:14, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs,
i can consider i answered him.
That's difficult since
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/112807f2
Author switched to WTFPL2, solving the problem.
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 01/12/2012 12:17, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:47:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for
the upstream files, but (c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A.
On 03/12/2012 10:38, Florian Rothmaier wrote:
Hi Jérémy,
Am 01.12.2012 12:28, schrieb Jérémy Lal:
I thought public-domain wasn't DFSG (because it's not in some countries).
That's interesting and something new to me. The public domain
is listed on the page
http://wiki.debian.org
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
http://opensource.org/faq#cc0
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 31/01/2013 19:45, MJ Ray wrote:
Jérémy.
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging?
Not particularly. Some packages i
On 31/01/2013 23:16, Ben Finney wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
Will you still be uploading to main, if one day it becomes illegal
in your own country ?
Are you taking a poll? Or is there particular interest in MJ Ray's
answer?
No.
What is the actual issue you're addressing
On 01/02/2013 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
If a work can actually be placed into the public domain
Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
be placed into the public
On 06/06/2013 07:40, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
I am working on packaging ccnet[1] library (requirement for seafile),
and the upstream code has two licenses in the base directory - MIT
and GPL-3+.
When I asked for clarification they have replied the code is GPL-3+
with some parts reused from
http://polymer.github.io/PATENTS.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/react/master/PATENTS
(They are similar)
It's unclear to me if they render their otherwise osi-approved license
DFSG-free or not. Thank you for any light on this.
Jérémy
Hi Xavier,
I don't think there is such a thing named "recognized by DFSG".
A license can pass DFSG or not, and this one, after reading it,
seems to be okay.
Hopefully more experimented eyes will read it too.
IANAL,
Jérémy (x97).
2017-11-21 18:35 GMT+01:00 Xavier
In zlib documentation i found this license in these two files:
doc/rfc1951.txt
doc/rfc1952.txt
Copyright: 1996, L.Peter Deutsch
Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any
purpose and without charge, including translations into other
languages and incorporation into
2018-04-28 13:36 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org>:
> In zlib documentation i found this license in these two files:
> doc/rfc1951.txt
> doc/rfc1952.txt
> Copyright: 1996, L.Peter Deutsch
> Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any
> pu
Le sam. 22 janv. 2022 à 21:04, Yadd a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Some logos have now GihHub style license. There is at least one non-DFSG
> constraint, but is there some exceptions for logo (ie trademark)?
>
> Example :
>
> How to Use These Logos
> Do these awesome things
> ✅ Use the WebAuthn logo to
23 matches
Mail list logo
