Re: DFSG-ness of two

Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow this option. I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream list

Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] DFSG-ness of two

On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:11:43 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote: [...] The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just talks about using, which is a vague term) Are you sure? Clause 3 says: 3) If you modify

Re: Re: DFSG-ness of two

Hi, [I should have requested to keep pkg-pascal-devel@l.a.d.o in the CC] Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow this option. I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly

Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] DFSG-ness of two

Hi Francesco, On 29-05-15 23:07, Francesco Poli wrote: Second: Windows XP Theme Manager is freeware. You may freely use it in any software, including commercial software, provided you accept the following conditions: 1) The software may not be included into component collections and similar

Re: DFSG-ness of two

Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged

Re: DFSG-ness of two

- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell

Re: DFSG-ness of two

- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. The two sentences can not be dissociated:

Re: DFSG-ness of two

Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged

DFSG-ness of two

Hi Debian legal, I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this (mostly wondering about clause 3 of the first license and clause 1 of the second). My interpretation of this is that they are non-DFSG, but I am also aware

Re: DFSG-ness of two

On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product

Re: DFSG-ness of two

- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be

Re: DFSG-ness of two

Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly.

Re: DFSG-ness of two

On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote: Hi Debian legal, Hello Paul, thanks for taking these freeness issues seriously. I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this [...] First: [...] My own