> "Mihai" == Mihai Moldovan writes:
Mihai> In this case, we're "just" talking about missing notices for
Mihai> dependencies that are pulled in, which might not be nice, but
Mihai> also, realistically, nobody would really care about or try to
Mihai> enforce it (unless somebody
> "Marius" == Marius Gripsgard writes:
Marius> Hi, Could someone review this?
Marius> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1045145
I have read the bug, but not looked into the claims in the bug:
* The v2 dashboard is distributed under a new license
* That license only
> "Richard" == Richard Laager writes:
Richard> Furthermore, courts are not robots blindly executing
Richard> code. Seriously, can you imagine standing in court trying
Richard> to argue to a judge that this distinction matters and
Richard> somehow causes you damage‽
I agree
> "Johannes" == Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes:
>> In such situations we have sometimes had success reaching out to
>> companies and negotiating something.
Johannes> Who is usually doing this reaching out? Individual DDs
Johannes> like myself or official
> "Andrius" == Andrius Merkys writes:
Andrius> Hello, [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]
Andrius> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under
Andrius> Expat and has the following in its README.md:
Andrius> "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
> "Johannes" == Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes:
Johannes> Dear Debian legal, I seek advice on the NXP Software
Johannes> License Agreement and whether binaries licensed under it
Johannes> are redistributable in non-free(-firmware) or not. The
Johannes> full text is
> "Jan" == Jan Mojzis writes:
Jan> If I understand it correctly, CC0-style public-domain
Jan> declaration in debian/copyright solves the problem. (learned
Jan> here:
Jan> https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2017/09/msg00171.html)
I'm not entirely sure I agree with Don,
> "Jan" == Jan Mojzis writes:
* Package name: randombytes
Version : 20230126
Upstream Author : Daniel J. Bernstein
* URL : https://randombytes.cr.yp.to/
* License : Public domain
Public domain is problematic as a license.
At least under US copyright law,
> "Richard" == Richard Fontana writes:
Richard> I'm curious if there are opinions on why "must retain the
Richard> above copyright notice immediately at the beginning of the
Richard> file" is consistent with the DFSG. This is one of a variety
Richard> of 1990s FreeBSD
> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes:
Francesco> I am under the impression that a more correct way to
Francesco> achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to
Francesco> create a different license, possibly reusing some parts
Francesco> of the GNU GPL v2, but
> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes:
Francesco> So licensing under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and then
Francesco> adding further restrictions creates a self-contradiction.
Francesco> That does not seem a correct way to apply the GPL...
No, it does not. That term--the term
> "Ben" == Ben Westover writes:
Ben> Hello, I was going to package some software that has portions
Ben> licensed under the Microsoft Public License. Is it copatible
Ben> with the DFSG? A quick search yielded no results. Below is the
Ben> full text of the license.
If not it's
> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Crane writes:
Sebastian> Dear Tobias,
>> No, that is not how it works. It is not only nice to have. We
>> want the "preferred form of modification" in the package and a
>> binary blob is often not.
Sebastian> What would you say the preferred
> "Ole" == Ole Tange writes:
Ole> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
Ole> :
>> (1) the wording almost requires citation
Ole> I take this as you agree that it does not require
Ole> citation. Also you do not point to how the default behaviour of
> "Tobias" == Tobias Frost writes:
Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.
By this dxo you mean
1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG? (I agree only if
something in the license prevents you from removing them)
2) Click wraps are a no-go in something you maintain?
> "Bone" == Bone Baboon writes:
Bone> Here is some additional details.
Bone> Two key issues with Muse Group's new privacy policy for
Bone> Audacity are the on by default telemetry and that Audacity can
Bone> no longer be used for any purpose contradicting freedom 0.
> "Marc" == Marc Haber writes:
Marc> Is the MIT License sufficiently compatible to the (L)GPL to
Marc> allow this use? The code interfaces both with the (arbitrary)
Marc> application issueing the bind() call and the glibc. Is that a
Marc> linking issue?
I believe MIT should
> "Diego" == Diego M Rodriguez writes:
Diego> ("pylatexenc/latexencode/_uni2latexmap_xml.py" [2]) is: #
Diego> Automatically generated from unicode.xml by gen_xml_dic.py
Diego> although the "unicode.xml" file itself it is not included in
Diego> the release tarball. It is
> "Bastian" == Bastian Germann writes:
Bastian> There are H.264 patents that are applicable. I do not know
Bastian> how the existing H.264 implementations in Debian handle
Bastian> this, e.g. x264 or ffmpeg. According to the legal FAQ,
Bastian> these seem to be ignored.
I
Alexander> I wanted to get some clarification as I couldnt find this
Alexander> info via googling/debian pages (but I might've missed
Alexander> something obvious, if so - I'd appreciate pointing me in
Alexander> right direction on what should i read)
Under section 2.4 of debian
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be
Brian distributed under the same terms as the license of the
Brian original software seems to be an important component of
Brian Freedom. I really do think,
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute
Brian the Program except as expressly provided under this
Brian License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense
Brian or distribute the Program is
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only
have a problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the
all-permissive license to the original
Matthew == Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, and ? you distribute something under the BSD, someone use
it and sells it under a proprietary version, how is this fairer
? And how is it fairer as
Matthew Because I can do the same thing too. Everybody has the
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
enforced, and there's no good reason to suspect that it will be
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't necessarily object to the point that the dissident test
is trying to make (not that I necessarily agree with it), but I
do object to its phrasing. It's obviously more concerned with
banning forced distribution of
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author
many more rights with the software than you had -- he can take
it proprietary, and you can't. Also, no matter who you want
to give those modifications to, you
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to try and formulate the asymmetry criterion you
might want to consider the case of a licence L that forced
everyone who distributes a modified version to make their
modifications available under a BSD
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek
Branden wrote:
It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would
be a conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid,
or that
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips
Branden wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett
Branden wrote:
Side note: while researching this further, I discovered that
the xinetd license requires keeping the original version number
and only
Anthony == Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony On Apr 22, 2004, at 17:39, Sam Hartman wrote:
Copyright 2003 by the Evil Empire, Inc. This software can be
redistributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2., with
the exception that it may be linked
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ I will not reply to your grandstanding about our needs, other
MJ than to note that the default for unlicensed software is
MJ roughly all rights reserved, so we must get clear
MJ permissions.
We are not a court. We do not pursue
Jeremy == Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG
Jeremy section for the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes
Jeremy to prohibiting use restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination
Jeremy Against Fields of
Don == Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don You have the right to make the exception for your own work,
Don and since the original work maintains the exception, you can
Don combine the two to make an exception over the whole
Don work. [Assuming that the original exception
Thinking more about this issue, I've come up with an example that I
thin illustrates how we have accepted similar sloppiness in the past.
I suspect we would accept and have accepted a copyright at the top of
a file that said roughly:
Copyright 2003 by the Evil Empire, Inc.
This software can be
Jacobo == Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jacobo O Martes, 20 de Abril de 2004 ás 13:52:19 -0700, Jake Appelbaum
escribía:
Jacobo Let this be my first try at a license analysis in d-l :)
5. In all other respects the GPL 2.0 applies
Jacobo Oh, a nonconsistent license
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if the *.wav file has since been edited in
Brian a wav editor and cannot be automatically recreated?
MJ So be it. It's just been compiled in an odd way. A description would
MJ be nice.
I disagree. If I edit the sound font file in a
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ On 2004-04-22 00:08:31 +0100 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ wrote:
Jacobo == Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jacobo O Martes, 20 de Abril de 2004 ás 13:52:19 -0700,
Jacobo Jake Appelbaum
escribÃa:
Jacobo Let
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ wrote:
Please could you answer to his question?
MJ I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see
MJ it in the forwarded email.
MJ For the question
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It ought not to be difficult (neither in a technical or in a
economic/legal sense) for manufacturers to ship the standard
firmware as a separate file on the driver CD that
Anthony == Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 10:35, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What about GPL #6? Each time you redistribute the Program (or
any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original
I continue to believe that like other packages already in Debian,
supporting libdvdcss if it is found is perfectly reasonable. If you
manage to dlopen it and find the right symbols, use it.
If someone complains, we can reevaluate the situation at that point.
There is already software in Debian that will look at video data on
non-CSS DVDs.
I think it is fine to include the software you propose and is probably
even acceptable to use libcss if found.
If libcss usage becomes a problem, I think there may even be ways
around that. We could create a
J == J D Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for making
J modifications' be information-theoretical.
Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
into situations where it was not obvious in a particular instance what
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
* You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or
intended for * use in the design, construction,
Is there some reason you cannot include that paragraph in the text
that invokes the GPL in evry source file? Would that not be
sufficient?
Also, unless sections of 15 CFR have been renumbered, I believe the
citation to the EAR is wrong.
Glenn == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman
Glenn wrote:
How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a
requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation?
We consider both of those free
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not distributing source
code to GPL packages that they distribute. In particular, I looked at
http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html#license and found
the following text:
If not otherwise specified, the
Oliver == Oliver M Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oliver On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:39:32AM -0400, Sam Hartman
Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not
distributing source code to GPL packages that they distribute
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 06:39:13PM -0600, Ardo van
Steve Rangelrooij wrote:
Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
I've been contacted by Ann
I think that software that falls under the definition of publically
available--I can go dig up a citation if you really care--can be
exported almost anywhere or at least sufficiently almost anywhere that
we ignore the problem. The only exception to this in the EAR
regulations at all seems to be
Philip == Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round
and round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and
overusing cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people.
Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to
arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson
John wrote:
But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two
documents that except for a few places are identical; please
make a lot of changes to yours
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Why not change the DFSG?
Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to. IT would
probably be a minimum of six months or so before we can sort these
out.
Mark == Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to be a question based on the false idea that the DFSG
is intended to be taken literally and without interpretation,
though. The DFSG is fairly useless without being augmented by
human judgement.
Mark It could even be
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell But even if you disagree with me, how would you change
Russell the DFSG so that it agrees with you? Because I see
Russell nothing in the DFSG which keeps APSL code out of Debian.
The standard argument seems to be that
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:08:15PM -0500, Russell Nelson
Take out the RD and personal use grants. Does it still comply
with the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more
freedom to make the software
David == David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I think that a logo is beyond a copyright notice that 2 (c)
David requires the preservation of. Why not suggest switching to
David the AGPL?
Does that actually meet DFSG?
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:03:44AM +0100, Sunnanvind
Branden Fenderson wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In my opinion,
the DFSG should not be interpreted in a way that legitimizes
any
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications
under section 3 of the GPL. But that is only for object code
or executable form. Debian is distributing it
How does DFSG #4 interact with texts like the Unicode data or the FHS?
Is it sufficient to allow distribution of diffs along with the
original sources?
It seems that from a source standpoint the answer is yes. What's
unclear is how this interacts with things built from the sources. I
honestly
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:57:17PM -0500, Chad Miller
Steve wrote:
However, _now_ there might be some possible legal problems with
it. The postgresql driver links against libssl, which has a
license that forbids
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Scripsit Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Requiring a click-through license acceptance ceremony is,
Branden in and of itself, incompatible with the GNU GPL. This is
Branden because it makes requirements
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question is: Does this EULA pose any problem for Debian
distributing UnrealIRCd (which is GPLed)?
Branden Hell yes.
Branden This is certainly DFSG-nonfree and probably
Branden GPL-incompatible. The effective
Jeff == Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 01:31, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Branden Robinson writes: Perhaps the LaTeX community should
appoint a spokesman to the Debian Project so that we do not
get contradictory statements about what is
Boris == Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Boris This is exactly the same with LaTeX. If you create a new
Boris format newlatex.fmt and symlink /usr/bin/tex to
Boris /usr/bin/newlatex (this is the UNIX TeX way to use
Boris formats), then you have a complete freedom to load
Javier == Javier Bezos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Javier Thanks for saying apparently :-). We are repeating and
Javier repeating again than you can rewrite latex in full, if you
Javier want.
MMM, someone on the Debian side here should write up an instructive
rant on what source code
Jeff, it's not clear under your license how Debian could package a
modified version. OUr binary packaging system (and the DFSG) do not
really allow modifications to be separate from the original
particularly for compiled works. I may be missing something obvious.
Assuming that this license were
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin
Branden wrote:
I cannot[1] release new Nessus[2] packages because the upstream
GPLed code has switched to using OpenSSL. Sadly, the parts of
Nessus that are
Rene == Rene Mayrhofer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rene Hi all, For a Java client that is to be uploaded soon
Rene (fireflier, announced in the last week on debian-devel), the
Rene Sun JSSE libraries are needed. According to the license that
Rene comes with JSSE (attached to this
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Imagine software that is GPL, and has a time-limited additional
right to distribute when linked with OpenSSL.
Branden Yes, and in fact I would advocate just such an action.
The software itself is free. No question. It
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman
Branden wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think software legal to
distribute only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main.
As I argued in my
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive
discrimination.
Wichert There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
This has come up several times over the last two years. As
Glenn == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Michael Sweet
Glenn wrote:
The license exception is there specifically so that MacOS and
Darwin developers can link against libcupsimage or derive their
own code from various
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Zander's
message of 12 May 2002 21:53:28 -0700)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.1
(i386-debian-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 06:12:29 -0400
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lines: 5
MIME-Version
John == John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On 17 Mar 2002, Sam Hartman wrote:
C == C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C Many packages contain preprints or reprints of academic papers
C as part of their documentation. In many cases, there is no
C ``source
C == C M Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C Many packages contain preprints or reprints of academic papers
C as part of their documentation. In many cases, there is no
C ``source'' available for these documents -- they are
C distributed as PostScript or PDF files.
One case
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden --XZq0mbLCR4KNTYFe Content-Type: text/plain;
Branden charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Branden Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Branden Please review the Disclaimer for Debian's Public Mailing
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 04:08:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman
Branden wrote:
I'd argue that the disclaimer only matters if the person posted
the content to the list themselves rather than have it
forwarded and even
Walter == Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: You might
consider is a far cry from you must. I don't think you
*plonk*
You clearly have not read the text I pointed you at.
This discussion is pointless if you're not going to spend the time to read the
law in question.
From the standpoint of Debian, this discussion has been pointless
since its start.
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Florian On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 11:32:59PM -0600, Steve Langasek
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Florian On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 01:02:51PM -0500, Sam Hartman
[CC trimmed.]
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian Sorry - that is simply not true - As an effect of the
Florian laws the fact that i knowingly export non-us to t7
Florian countries now has no effect. Germany=20 has no laws on
Florian this. If we have the
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Florian On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:10:02PM -0500, Sam Hartman
David == David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Apparently, the maintainer of Glut hasn't been changed yet.
David So I'll cc you directly. (Sorry for the extra copies, James.)
David On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
reopen 131997
thanks
Walter == Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Walter Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
This rather long paragraph means that I can't take out some code
covered by patents and use it to extend my favorite text editor.
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Moving on to the other objection, does you may not charge
Joey for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
Joey distributing the program violate the DFSG? The DFSG
Joey requires that a program's license not prevent sale of
Cord == Cord Beermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cord Hi.
Cord I got this bug-report today.
Cord Does debian-legal share the opinion of Peter Makholm?
Cord Cord
A DFSG-free package must allow modification and must say so in its
license. I'm not sure I share the opinion about
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith
Raul wrote:
Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like
it was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
Raul I didn't dismiss it. [And,
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul And because arranging the distribution to satisfy the don't
Raul distribute gpled code with the incompatible executable
Raul sub-clause requires, in essence, that we set up two
Raul independent distribution channels. [So we can
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul If the should send sources to author thing is a
Raul requirement -- if people must send sources to author under
Raul some circumstances, it's a DFSG problem.
I'd like to see justification for this. I've seen justification for
Wookey == Wookey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wookey 1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author
Wookey for inclusion in a later release of the tools.
Ask the author for what he means by should. If he doesn't see this as
a strict requirement, but only a strong
It might be worth going back to Internet Society and asking if the
qualification on derivative works is intended to be operative or
informative. Remember you are dealing with a group that uses the term
request for comments to cover anything from reports of network outages
many years ago to the
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin I'm inclined to say that we need explicit permission to
Colin modify and to distribute modified versions.
Agreed.
Colin Apart from
Colin that, though, what do you think about the last clause? Is
Colin it equivalent to
Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Herbert This will decide whether we can distribute FreeDOS binary
Herbert packages as currently it requires the Borland compiler to
Herbert build. -- Debian
Hmm, I assume this pushes it into non-free if we can distribute? How ironic.
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Note that the exception for stuff distributed
Anthony with the major components of the operating system
Anthony doesn't apply if we distribute both the executable and
Anthony the libarary in Debian. It probably does
and the libarary in
Anthony Debian. It probably does apply for third-parties, though,
Anthony fwiw.
Raul On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 06:12:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I don't follow your reasoning here, possibly because you are
summarizing a past discussion that happened long
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
