Re: Packaging text licenses

2019-12-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-15 13:01:16) > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:41:14 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09) > [...] > > > I don't think the exception may also apply when the license text > > > is the *actual payl

Re: Packaging text licenses

2019-12-14 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09) > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:01:18 +0100 Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > > > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only > > > for our users to pick

Re: Packaging text licenses

2019-12-14 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Baptiste BEAUPLAT (2019-12-14 15:12:38) > On 12/14/19 2:01 PM, Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote: > > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only > >> for our users to pick from (even on a lonely isla

Re: Packaging text licenses

2019-12-14 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
rg/CopyrightReviewTools Kind regards, - Jonas Maintainer and current upstream author of Licensecheck -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-31 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
y_ going on in their minds - and when their mindset and ours do not align, then surely they cannot be trusted to mean what the say - our need for simple distribution has higher priority than their right to grant complex licensing. Right? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist &

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-30 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 19:12:53) > On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24) > >> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 20

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-30 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
s, I believe so. As a concrete example, the Netatalk project has for many years released code with plugins linking to OpenSSL, but has not added an exception. Authors of Netatalk try to make a living out of commercial support for their product, and I genuinely think it is in their interest t

Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF

2014-05-21 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
on... - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature

Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF

2014-05-21 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Ian Jackson (2014-05-21 17:47:42) Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF): Quoting Turkey Breast (2014-05-21 14:22:23) I've made a Bitcoin library, and am seeking inclusion into Debian. We (me and the mentor) are seeking guidance

Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF

2014-05-21 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Paul Tagliamonte (2014-05-21 18:12:11) On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:06:38PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I can't figure out exactly what your previous concerns were but it's good to hear that they're resolved. For the record, my concern was not the AGPL (I am a fan of that too

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

2014-05-08 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
like a loophole to me: If Google wants an advantage by running better-than-ghostscript.google.com PDF convertor, they can simply let another company/organisation/person be the Debian in their chain and not need to reveal their patches to their users. What did I miss? - Jonas -- * Jonas

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

2014-05-08 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-05-08 21:55:45) * Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk, 2014-05-08, 21:37: So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others only require an interface serving its sources

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

2013-01-16 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2013-01-16 07:27:25) On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective license. ...and will start

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

2013-01-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38) On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM

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

2013-01-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-01-15 20:59:35) On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_. That's not true. The purpose of the copyright file has

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

2013-01-14 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
* of the licensing formally covered by the copyright file format 1.0 are about the licensing of _binary_ packages. It is my understanding that they all are about sources only, not effective reasoned licenses. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] MIT +no-false-attribs

2012-03-09 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
not closely familiar with the package: Would easily violate the license. I therefore recommend that if npm is packaged for Debian then we take the necessary steps from the beginning even if not strictly required, to avoid future complications. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet

Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?

2009-10-20 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22:12AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. I think it's

Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?

2009-10-19 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:32:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:05:44 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new license... I believe that I

New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?

2009-10-18 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
? Kind regards, - Jonas co-maintainer of Ghostscript for Debian Please cc me personally on responses, as I am not subscribed to the list. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before

Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?

2009-10-18 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:30 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without

Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?

2009-10-18 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:24:56PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the following license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without

ok for Redland to link against openssl?

2008-09-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
on responses, as I am not subscribed to the list. - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux

Re: ok for Redland to link against openssl?

2008-09-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi again, Thanks for the quick response! On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Currently morla (ITP bug#431824) cannot be packaged as it is GPL. Should I convince upstream