On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:32:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 05 septembre 2009 à 18:52 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Well, not completely a copyleft license, IMHO.
It says:
| If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to
| otherwise publish or distribute
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:08:26PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
P.S.: Please do not reply to me and the list, as I didn't ask to be
copied.
Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use list-reply instead
of group-reply on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
be so much simpler
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
GNU Free Documentation License
Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
A Transparent copy of the Work means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the
general public,
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while
aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:16:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft
of the GPL v.3.
You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) --
but if
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 10:38:14PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Moritz Lenz said:
Included in EiffelStudio is the so called Base Library, released
under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for
programming with eiffel, you are not
I'm adding a CC to debian-legal, the Debian ML for legal issues.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:08:30PM -0400, Chuck Hagenbuch wrote:
Quoting Gregory Colpart [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perhaps, I should ask this in all (core|drivers) developers listed
in CREDITS file (but copyright in LICENSE file is for
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html
Wow. I had
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 12:00:46PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I've noticed that the gnome-vfs2 source package includes some GPL
source files. These are the sources of gnome-vfs-daemon. As I
understand it, the daemon is not essential for the gnome-vfs
functionality, but it is spawned when
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 04:44:28PM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 16:25, Uwe Hermann wrote:
I'm currently packaging a program which uses the oui.txt file from
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml
I know that some other programs in Debian have
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
I am considering packaging latex-mk
(http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/) for Debian. I am appending below
its copyright notice. I think it is DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure
about item 3 and 4. Comments are appreciated.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it,
you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent
grant. So if there is
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:30:02AM +0100, Samuel Mimram wrote:
1. Coq upstream has agreed to put a license on the documentation
Of course, I don't expect it to be DFSG-free.
Of course, we have to comment here that we think
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:38:25AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 12/20/05, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tarball compiler (I mean the person that put all the files
together in a consistent collection) can assert a compilation
copyright (that is a copyright over
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:52:20AM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On 11/8/05, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
According to Christian belief, the bible is the word of God.
According to Nietzsche (in 1882), God is dead
Copyright in the United Kingdom..., by J.A.L. Sterling.
This one doesn't contain the string ortho and indepen only at one
place that doesn't seem to apply.
Lionel Elie Mamane cited the 1998 Copyright Act, which surprised
me because I've not heard of it. Which country is it for?
I mistyped; I meant
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 05:43:33PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Does the crown copyright on the KJV affect other Commonwealth
countries e.g. Australia?
I don't know. If it hasn't been abrogated by the Australian
legislative body between independence and present, it does. I suppose
that
(
Please mail followups to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
)
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Quoting Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 08:51:26PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
This makes the KJV of the bible non-free in GB and probably even
illegal to distribute at all in GB, unless the Crown gives a blanket
license for electronic
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Lionel Elie Mamane:
Please investigate this before uploading to Debian.
Or alternatively, depend on the bible-kjv-text package, which already
is in main.
I'd rather we had a good investigation on this, that would be valid
See http://lwn.net/Articles/2376/ .
According to LWN (and other websites which have taken LWN as a
source), there may be a patent-time bomb affecting SELinux: Secure
Computing Corporation, who wrote a significant part of SELinux, holds
patents on it, but doesn't give a clear-cut license, only a
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I think it's possible that the short strings in this program are
uncopyrightable since they're so short, and since there is no
copyright for databases the collection as a group isn't
copyrightable either.
Many countries have
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:12:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some murmurings on the Web (e.g.,
http://www.spatula.net/software/sex/ ,
http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?sex-1.0 ) from people who believe that
it
is BSD-licensed, but in truth
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
The more operative question is if we found the specification from
the patent file, copied it, and then benefited. As I doubt very
much any Free Software developer has been grepping through the US
Patent repository for ideas, this
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote:
If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the
move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and
pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent,
which I believe expired in
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote:
If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the
move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and
pgp5i, the only thing
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Nicolas Sabouret wrote:
Josh Triplett proposed me a patch to move javacc from contrib to
main (see bug #225484).
The .java source files are all provided in the package's source
(they can be compiled using kaffe) but the fact is they were not
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:06:10PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference
implementations in the SRFI's.
I have done some more digging around the issue. Several scheme
implementations in Debian main contain code lifted from SRFI
Hi,
(This is the next episode of the let's free scsh saga.)
I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference
implementations in the SRFI's. An SRFI, Scheme Request For
Implementation, is the process by which the Scheme community agrees on
standard libraries and features for various
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:33PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this
copyright notice:
Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference
implementation DFSG-free (providing the rest
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of
the wording.
All I found was
32 matches
Mail list logo
