Re: Another 2-clause BSD or a mistake?

Le Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:40:16PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a écrit : > License: BSD-custom-2-clause I would recommend a different abbreviation. BSD-custom-2-clause may give the false impression that this is a standard BSD 2-clause license where the copyright holders are not the regents of the

Re: BSD license + should

but I think that I have seen similar cases where it was. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Ian Jackson writes: > > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and > > get them to fix the licence for this particular program. > > Preferably, convince the copyright

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

> Eriberto Mota writes: > > > However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian. Le Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:33:02AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Don't (only) wait for them here. I would advise you to ask the people > distributing the work what they

Re: Inclusion of PDF with CC Attr 3.0 license

er share their build system and then integrate them in their sofware package. So my personal point of view is that shipping the PDF in the source package is harmless, shipping it in a binary package is close to useless, and we should let the package maintainer chose the solution that he finds most suita

Re: Are there any stats of reasons given for rejections of package to the Package archive ?

Hi Shirish, in complement to Paul's answer, I would like to mention the peer-review process that I outlined in the Debian wiki: <https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview>. While it never got traction, you are free to try it if you like. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med pac

Re: Is possible relicense from GPL to BSD?

the OSI website, the 4-clause BSD is not there. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: R packages licensed MIT but not shipping a copy of the MIT license itself

nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

the state of pqueue is very clear. Of course, a pull request to brush up the LICENCE file might be appreciated by the author(s) anyway. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

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

eneral, frequently used and well-understood license Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

r, I just wanted to add to the advice of not writing new licenses, that part of the problem that you are trying to address can be solved by requiring a contributor agreement before merging contributions into your software's main line. See for instance <https://owncloud.org/contribute/agreement/>. Ha

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

uot;a trap". Do you have concrete examples of cases where people fell in that trap and got hurt since then ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit : > > any progress on this? > I starting to feel lonely here. Hi Ferenc, happy new year ! ... you are not alone :) don't give up ! Sometimes things are not quick in Debian ... Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

as the PostScript code" are not found in any other package; good ! Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Source files

that the commit messages and the revisions of a file are part the source, since inspecting them is part of the "preferred" way to modify the file. But we are not there yet... Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Source files

> Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > > > > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not > > matter anymore. Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit : > > Why not? If I take the GPL defini

Re: Source files

assed the screening of the FTP team when it entered our archive. You can also add Lintian overrides if the Lintian maintainers are uncooperative. Thanks for your hard work, and have a nice day, Charles Plessy -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0

, although it would be great of course if the Subversion authors would manage to elimiate this license from their sources, because this license is not a good example to follow. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: DFSG-ness of two

seperatly. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for profit to other developers. On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font

Re: DFSG-ness of two

team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https

Re: GPL + question

to be indicated in debian/copyright should be GPLv3+. Have a nice week-end, Charles -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org

Re: DFSG-ness of two

in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free. Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Makefile.in.in license

probably ignore the problem. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150130232546.gc14

Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library

be kind to write somewhere in the documentation that Y is GPL-licensed. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https

Re: License of binary packages

the machine-readable format). However, it is not canonical, nor automated. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https

Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright

the apparent contradiction at the pace you want, you can even consider it a wishlist, “patch welcome” issue only. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal

Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright

. Not elegant, but accurate. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive

Re: Question about a custom license from dictconfig

://codesearch.debian.net/search?prev=q=the+name+of+Vinay+Sajip Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140826211059

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

be better to use the same license as upstream, to simplify their work. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

modification. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140819214405.gb13...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140801231037.ga8...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Le Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 08:10:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : I think that it is important that a few of the ‘some members’ would identify themselves in support for that request, and explain what they would do if the worries expressed below turned out to be true. Sorry for the extra

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

software, and sell it as “Debian Enhanced”. We and other protect our names, and PHP does it too. I do not see a problem. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

(modulo a small delay) become part of Testing again. This already has been done for packages such as php-memcached, and could be done for others. Thank you for your patience ! -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: DEP-5 copyright names on a single line

, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140604121619.ga21...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: Need more (legal) information

, which is included at Appendix F.” To me, it appears that Appendix F, which has non-Free clauses, applies. Have you tried to contact the authors of KANJIDIC ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org

Re: Creative Commons 4.0 licenses published

version is *explicitly* discouraged for use with software. Hi Thorsten, Can you share a link to such a recommendation with a reasonable explanation ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: CC0 and authors' names in Copyright field

...] Or is there an even better third solution? Solution 2 is fine; Copyright: [year] John Doe would be enough as well. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble

Re: CC0 and authors' names in Copyright field

-readability. Currently, the canonical URL for the standard is http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/. As for CC0, as Ben explained, it is a license, and the simplest is to list the copyright holders as for other licenses. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi

Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory

to be licensed under terms that may be not welcome Upstream ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org

Re: ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?

have not studied the other clauses of the ODbL, but section 4.6 therefore does not seem to make it non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas

Re: redistributability of two software pieces in non-free

) Other interested research groups will be redirected * to the author. The user will not redistribute the code outside * his immediate research group. Dear Johannes, I think that this clause forbids the redistribution by Debian. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?

. Also, with such a low threshold for banning people who are polite, precise, who do not engage into flamewars, and never show aggressivity, we will set the stage for massive purge and witch-hunting, because of many people are within the treshold. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?

really feel like an idiot when I contact upstream to ask them to relicense works, and I am not able to explain why it matters. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?

unsatisfied in one direction or the other and telling it repeatedly their opinion on that matter. If you do not like this, please write a convincing and authoritative explanation of Debian's opinion, that will close the debate. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse

FWD: SPDX Technical team invites your participation!

Hello everybody, for those interested in the subject: SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange, http://spdx.org) is calling for contributions for their 2.0 version. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan - Forwarded message - Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:57:39 + Subject

Re: Bug#698019: libav: the effective GPL-licensed status of the binary packages should be clearly documented

for the package as a whole. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130114015538.gc5...@falafel.plessy.net

FWD: on the variability of BSD and MIT licenses

Dear all, there is an interesting email on the SPDX mailing list, distributing an article about the BSD and MIT license families. Here is a link to the page with the attached file. http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/2012-December/000785.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Illkirch

Re: Open data french license

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:41:46 +0100 (CET) x.guim...@free.fr wrote: The complete text can be found here : * Original text : http://www.data.gouv.fr/Licence-Ouverte-Open-Licence * English translation :

Re: licensing question for nom.tam.fits

(and asking you at that time if you would like to summarise the contents of the Copyright field in files where License indicates public-domain). Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe

Re: licensing question for nom.tam.fits

copyright files from svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose contents such as none, nobody, public-domain, not relevant, etc, which I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is free-form. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi

Re: Bug#681654: #681654 kstars-data-extra-tycho2: undistributable

Le Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:15:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:02:13 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Catalogues available at CDS contain scientific data distributed for free, for a scientific usage. [...] Doesn't this fail DFSG#6 ? Hi, given

Re: Bug#681654: #681654 kstars-data-extra-tycho2: undistributable

considers that in the statement in 681654#52, cannot charge for the data means the same as not sold by themselves in the OFL, then it would be consistent to keep kstars-data-extra-tycho2 in Debian, as SIL-OFL-licensed works are allowed. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

« Debian » is still distributed under a persmissive license on www.debian.org/logos, so anybody who worries about license incompatibilities can make a backup now, and redistribute it under its permissive license later if it looks useful. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.

, perhaps you or others can consider asking for a change to the NM templates via a bug reported to nm.debian.org. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas

Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing

to be a (re-)distribution issue. Rather, the need for an additional agreement with CAcert. Hello Raphael, could it be a very strangely phrased disclaimer of warranty ? That A lets B rely on A, is similar to A warrants to B. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: About packages-metadata [was: Re: Freeness of this license]

are in a subdirectory, the grep command can also be run on '*/*.copyright' instead of recursively; this will remove some noise as Subversion keeps copies in subdirectories. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: About kstars-data-extra-tycho2 distributability

Le Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:54:05PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : On the package kstars-data-extra-tycho2 it has arisen a doubt about its distributability: See bug #681654 On Martes, 21 de agosto de 2012 02:55:43 Charles Plessy wrote: sorry to discard the arguments you

Re: Freeness of this license

harmless Adobe against any losses, damages and costs arising from the claims, lawsuits or other legal actions arising out of such distribution. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Re: About kstars-data-extra-tycho2 distributability

for a clarification to one of the current mainstream distributors ? http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?target=httpcat=I/259 Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: CC-BY-SA 2.5 can be re-released under 3.0?

of this License » only applies to derivatives (called adatpations in version 3.0). Section 4.a, which applies to the original work, does not give this permission. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org

Re: foremost package - Licence of debian/* files

, the SQLite public domain dedication, or the GNU all-permissive license. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files

://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/03/msg00031.html . By the way, can you confirm if the following terms of service are relevant to Google Translate ? . http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/#toc-content . Have a nice week-end, . -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate

. For the resulting translations, however, I think that I agree that there is no copyright claimed on them, and that they can be freely added to the original project. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files (Was: google translating gpl2+ licenced documentation...)

the behaviour of virtaal, which will propose to pre-fill tranlsations with the output of Microsoft Translator. If it is not possible to translate copylefted text with such services, maybe the functionality should be disabled by default ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa

Re: MIT +no-false-attribs

, it looks that the npm license is free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120311015132

Re: picviz license (generated images as derivative work ?)

a proprietary web service encapsulating Picviz. Similarly, it looks like the GPL considers the the build and install system as part of the source code, and the clarification that Picviz should not be installed via InstallShield looks therefore unnecessary. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi

Re: XUL template - proper license

the Debian copryight files. Have a nice day, and thank you very much for maintaining xul-ext-zotero ! -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DEP-5 best practice

stated by that paragraph. For the copyright statements, the current practice is to reproduce them and optionally combine them. If they are missing, then there is nothing to reproduce. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: custom license (package: bwctl)

. But I am not a native speaker. If it is the meaning of the Internet2 license that both parties must sign a document in order to “enter into a written license agreement”, then it is not a free license. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian

Re: custom license (package: bwctl)

. Thefore, while the validity of this concept of default license may be questionable, I do not think that it is non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: Fwd: Re: Copyright and License status of transtab

, unfinished project) Regardless of the license, this calls in question whether this piece of code is fit for the level of support expected for a Debian package. If there are possible replacements that are actively maintaine, it may pay off to switch to them. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy

Re: Bug#388141: Ask contributors a permission to relicense

repository. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http

Re: Local community license issue

/html/whydisclaim.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120108091050.gd1

Re: Debian official web site is still non-free

reason to go for relicensing or copyright disclaiming instead. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble

Re: conflict between name and text of a license

advertisemnt clause… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213231832.gc19

Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker

. government employees). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2015082442.ga27

Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker

Le Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:49:47AM -0500, Hendrik Weimer a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: The public-domain short name is reserved for cases where the work is really in the public domain in the strict legal sense of it; this is a rare case (for instance, some works of U

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

minimalistic license that have a very short disclaimer, like the GNU All-Permissive license: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: Are ‘UniProt’ records complying with the DFSG ?

a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org

Re: Font license

, after undelining the potential problems. This may be a good opportunity to ask them if they would kindly consider a free license, or at least a non-free license that is already in Debian. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110307100240.gc22...@merveille.plessy.net

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

Le Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit : Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef: Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if this addition to the AGPL

Re: copyright on upstream patches

Le Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:16:26AM +0100, Harald Jenny a écrit : I also thought about this but as the license text for the University of California differes slightly from the one of Petr Rehor I wasn't sure this is the correct way to do it - I also thought about: Oops, I missed this as the

Re: data copyright or not -- what is Debian's take?

reproduction, unless it is the will of the copyright holders to have their names accompanying each and every derivative. But can you imagine the mess if one had to track which contributor to acknowledge when reproducing an extract of the human genome ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med

Re: fmodapi license and non-free

difficult to maintain. So it looks like a bad start… Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110112232147.ga20

Re: SWIG license change to GPLv3, wording of debian/copyright?

of the MIT and BSD licenses, so their requrirement that ‘Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice…’ still fully applies: you have to quote them entirely. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?

. It is the addition of extra clauses and vague disclaimers that sometimes make licenses non-free (clauses like ‘do not kill people with my software’), so let's resist to temptation of making our license statements longer than what is necessary. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Does this license meet DSFG?

, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100409003426.ga28...@kunpuu.plessy.org

Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Le Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:56:44PM -0500, Joe Neal a écrit : http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code Hi Joe, have you seen the comment of Joey Hess, that it ‘Looks like the jsmin.py in libv8 is now a reimplementation with a standard license.’ Have a nice week-end, --

Re: GPL3 compatible?

sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100321014305.ga31...@kunpuu.plessy.org

Vagueness of what is ‘sub stantial’ in the Expat license.

works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas

Re: msntp license

[CC Jakub Drnec because I correct one statement I made earlier this year about the MSNTP license] Le Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit : * Charles Plessy: I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor burn a CD and sell

Re: EPL + LGPL compatiblity?

/azureus2/core3/util/BrokenMd5Hasher.java Copyright: 2005, jMuleGroup License: GPL-2 Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http

Re: Re: opencascade license in squeeze

/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100306015340.gc12

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

another good reason to remove the package. Does it provide functionalities that are not found in other packages? (the answer to this question is off-topic on debian-legal, so if necessary continuing that part of the discussion in the bug report would be preferable). Have a nice day, -- Charles

Re: POV-Ray 3.7 beta in experimental, but non-redistributable

that they already got it, they can close the bug with an upload that corrects the Debian copyright file, and otherwise the bug can be reassigned to ftp.debian.org as a request for removal. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: bsd modified bsd clarification

distribution and is copyright by the regents of the university of California, you can not use the copy in /usr/share/common-license and have to include it verbatim. Luckily, it is short :) Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: RFS: spim

day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: License question for new package

clauses are accepted in Debian by our archive administrators. See for instance http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/j/jhdf/jhdf_2.5-3/libjhdf5-jni.copyright Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

  1   2   >