Re: Determining Intention for Licensing

2014-07-25 Thread Kuno Woudt
the first step should be to ask upstream to clarify / fix the README. Have you tried that? What was their response? Though even if some parts are GPLv2-only and some are GPLv2-or-later, GPLv2-only is sufficient for debian. -- Kuno. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: local w3c copies for saxonhe and saxonb

2014-01-29 Thread Kuno Woudt
://dev.saxonica.com/repos/archive/opensource/latest9.4/data/w3c/ I think most of these files are already in the w3c-dtd-xhtml package, have you looked at that? Regards, Kuno Woudt. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas

Re: Creative Commons 4.0 licenses published

2013-11-28 Thread kuno
patents which are owned by the copyright holder(s)), or don't mention patents at all, in which case you may be able to argue in court that a patent license was implied. -- Kuno. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: licensing question for nom.tam.fits

2012-11-30 Thread Kuno Woudt
is which license should be chosen in the case that the sources are in the public domain? CC0 is the closest you can get to public domain, while still giving out a valid license for those jurisdictions where public domain doesn't work. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ -- kuno / warp

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-03-14 Thread Kuno Woudt
GPL includes terms and conditions substantially equivalent to those of this license. So, if you wish to use the AGPL, you as copyright holder can choose between AGPLv1 and AGPLv1 or later. But whichever you choose, you cannot remove the option to 'upgrade' to GNU GPLv3. -- Kuno. (ps