On 15944 March 1977, calumlikesapplepie wrote:
I thought this might happen: the license is unconventional, and I
wasn't
sure it would fly. I cc'ed debian-legal in this response: I'm pretty
sure
the license is DFSG-free, but IANAL, and they can confirm in a way I
can't.
I'm curious to read
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
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is
not
saying "I'm rubbish".
Are you sure that it's entirely possible?
No idea.
It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two
human languages, and I'm
On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the
arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth
nothing.
This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all
non-english developers and users.
Can
On 15317 March 1977, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in
non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I
think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice.
This is the authoritative Arabic version of the
On 14516 March 1977, Markus Frosch wrote:
> What's your opinion about that clause?
non-free
--
bye, Joerg
On 13334 March 1977, Johannes Schauer wrote:
While this software violates dfsg without doubt, I wonder if it could be
distributed in non-free because it states that it can only be copied for
academic use. Is copying equal to distribution?
Not it can't, as it forbids redistribution. Which is
On 13304 March 1977, Vincent Lhote wrote:
Conditions of use
You may:
-Install the fonts on as many devices as you wish.
-Distribute the fonts to anyone you wish.
-Use the fonts in any commercial or non-commercial document.
-Save the fonts in a format that would best fit your purposes.
You
On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
The new license for AMD microcode updates seems to be quite obnoxious.
Yes.
Is it acceptable for non-free?
Yes. non-free doesn't need much more than us being able to distribute it.
Except, ...
Without limiting the foregoing, the
On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Without limiting the foregoing, the Software may implement third party
technologies for which You must obtain licenses from parties other
than AMD. You agree that AMD has not obtained or conveyed to You, and
that You shall be
On 13235 March 1977, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
As a possible workaround, upstream has suggested to provide the documentation
already generated (could be for the submodules and/or the full doc, this has
not been discussed yet). My first reaction has been to think that this
On 13147 March 1977, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
We did not finally decide on a license. Current favorite is GPL 2 or later
which should be compatible with the licenses the libraries the script use
use[1].
ruby: Ruby 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL)
ruby-net-ssh: Expat
On 13107 March 1977, Giulio Paci wrote:
During a package review it came out that the software license includes
this statement: Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General
Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed
to have been agreed upon which comes
On 12853 March 1977, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
I recently received a report that jai-* packages may not be
compatible with debian non-free. Specifically I am looking at
jai-core's MEDIALIB FOR JAI/SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS section 2:
...
2. License to Distribute Software. In addition to
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files
Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.*
domain and donate it to the project, please contact
hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it.
Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of
Domain handling for Debian.
Cool. Does
Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.*
domain and donate it to the project, please contact
hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it.
Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of
Domain handling for Debian.
--
bye, Joerg
My first contact with
which seems to indicate I need to update the US Bureau of Export
Administration before uploading this package for the first time.
Is this still a requirement?
IIRC the archive software (dak) does this automatically for every new
package (or every upload, not sure) whether it contains
Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with
crockford
himself. His final answer: If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not
use the software.
Then his software will simply be not packaged.
--
bye, Joerg
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument
On 11873 March 1977, Pau Garcia i. Quiles wrote:
Given that the freely downloadable tarball will NOT accept commercial
license keys, I need to package a commercial version of the tarball. I
have been told this should not be a problem for Intersystems (I
waiting for a definitive answer on
Okay, here's a brief explanation of what it is that I'm trying to
accomplish. There are a significant number of artists out there who would
like to contribute art (graphics, music, etc) to FOSS game projects, but are
nervous about their work being exploited through loopholes in licenses like
On 11583 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems
All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for
the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting
services for people needing to put their personal modifications not
suiteable for a general public consumption and not interested in any
further work to
On 11558 March 1977, jfr fg wrote:
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
I, the creator of this work,
hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any
On 11441 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Now, each HTML file contains this comment:
Generated by Doxygen 1.3.9.1
Each file also contains this footer:
Copyright copy; 2005-2008 Intel Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
When I inquired in #debian-devel, AzaThat indicated that the All
On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote:
Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write.
Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly clear by itself
that debian-legal does NOT do any lawyers work (and
On 11274 March 1977, Matthew Johnson wrote:
I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license,
but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification
needed before it can be included in non-free?
This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in
On 0 March 1977, Mario Iseli wrote:
I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute
Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not
compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be
done with Skype's license to make it
On 11109 March 1977, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute
Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not
compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be
done with Skype's license to make it
On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-08 at 08:58 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
Can I get an explanation of why Debian considers a GFDL manual with
cover texts non-free?
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
On 11071 March 1977, Steve King wrote:
If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
homepage qualifies as full source code.
Thats ok.
--
bye Joerg
(13:24) Aquariophile ist iptables eigentlich nur ein tool zum
verhindern von aussenkonnecti,erungen auf gewissen ports oder
On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote:
A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the
official software being distributed timely and only from one source,
usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable
rammifications of their choice. I would recommend to
On 10997 March 1977, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
Upstream published an errata on the website. The don't have a gpg key to
sign the post:
http://vdrift.net/article.php/license-change-2007-03-23-release
I will copy the post in the debian/changelog with a link to the website.
Is it enough?
On 10816 March 1977, Al Nikolov wrote:
Please clarify for me, in which section should go a GPL-licensed package,
which is quite unusable without (but technically not Depends on), er,
obscure blobs of data, usually gathered by a way of sniffing data flow
between a proprietary application and a
On 10718 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of
dvds for free.
When posting on such questions using your debian.org email address, please
try to be clear about what us you're referring to. I have never heard
that LinuxMagazin
On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK,
backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge.
Yes, where is the problem?
Before I go on answering some small points in your mail - you do
remember that
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really
non-free mails.
So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
current way to go? Reject, accept?
(Hopefully not a check every package if it has , like
On 10596 March 1977, Pierre Machard wrote:
I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
some parts of the licence)
On 10597 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates
stored anywhere public?
Nope.
Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/legal/ please? I'll
put a link back when I remember how.
Most rejections are free form text (for the
On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote:
Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License
is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This
claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter
at debian-legal.
So lets look at that
On 10518 March 1977, Mickael Profeta wrote:
As it was linked with GPL libraries, I think the package is GPL and can
go to main, what is your opinion?
You didnt mention that it includes LGPLed works in the source tarball.
--
bye Joerg
Endianess is the dispute on which end to open an egg at.
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master
Hi
While doing a bit of work in the NEW queue Ive seen stuff using the PHP
license (exact version doesnt matter, they differ from package to
package, take http://www.php.net/license/2_02.txt or
http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt as examples).
(3.0 in this case taken).
It starts like a random
On 10298 March 1977, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
As some of you might know some time ago I created a web page for
listing information about licenses discussed by debian-legal
at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again
until
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we have bad news for your filesystems :(( it happens that some sections
of the license are not compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines [0].
Who is Domenico Andreoli? I have not noticed them as a debian-legal
summariser before. Who asked for this to
Package: xball
Severity: serious
Hi
The package xball contains the source file act_area.c and the license
for it is the following:
Written by Dan Heller. Copyright 1991, O'Reilly Associates.
This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and
is provided without
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, i have a question about the single CD that was distributed at
LinuxTag for example, did it also include the soruces, or was an
arrangement like that already done ?
For 2002 it doesnt include sources. If someone wants a Source CD i made
one, burned
Torsten Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May we discuss scilab's license, please? Scilab is currently assumed to
be non-free because of one sentence(1) in its license text
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/license.txt :
Any commercial use or circulation of the DERIVED SOFTWARE shall
have
49 matches
Mail list logo
