Hello,
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
I talked extensively to Athos during DebConf and, after looking at the
multiple licenses and nuances involved in this problem I believe:
1) Athos followed precisely the instructions from ftp-masters
On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 05:35:09PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
Hi Athos,
Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for the reply! Comments follow inline.
Thank you for working on this RFP, and for doing all the work involved
with reintroduction the package.
I'm CCing the debian-legal team who I hope will
Hi Athos,
Thank you for working on this RFP, and for doing all the work involved
with reintroduction the package.
I'm CCing the debian-legal team who I hope will be able to help with
the stylesheet question and related issues; I've given it my
best-effort, but would appreciate someone else's
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:50:46 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
I would like to advertise the packages-metadata repository:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/collab-qa/packages-metadata/
svn://svn.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/
http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata
Today
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:48:35 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
License to use, copy, modify, sell and/or distribute this software and
its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without royalty,
subject to the following terms and
Le Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:25:30PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Do you mean that one can search by cloning the subversion repository
and then using grep (and other similar tools) recursively in the
resulting local directory tree?
Yes, exactly. Since the all the copright files are in a
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:31:08 +0700 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, I am going to package fastcap and fasthenry. i have
neithertheless a problem with the last paragraph of the license
What do you think ?
[…]
Unless I be
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, I am going to package fastcap and fasthenry.
Thank you for giving attention to the important issue of the work's
license.
*
Copyright (C) 2003 by the Board of Trustees of Massachusetts Institute of
Technology,
Le Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:48:35AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
LICENSEE shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Copyright
Owners and their trustees, officers, employees, students and agents
against any and all claims arising out of the exercise of any rights
under this Agreement,
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, I am going to package fastcap and fasthenry. i have
neithertheless a problem with the last paragraph of the license
What do you think ?
[…]
Unless I be mistaken, this is a BSD-style license. The last
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just discovered that the people I was trying to help to migrate to the
GPL might be hesitating because they don't want their software to be
used to provide a service over the network without the source being
release, claiming that their service
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be
directly or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide
information as to how to obtain the complete source code for such work
^^at no more charge than the cost of transfer^^:
* on
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:51:03 + John Halton wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
This
Francesco Poli wrote:
Yeah, and then the FSF goes on to publish (or seek to publish):
* the GNU FDL [1]
* the GNU AfferoGPL
* the GNU SFDL [2]
* the GNU Wiki License, mentioned in a GFDLv2-draft1 proposed clause[3]
As if their existing licenses are Harry Potter stories widely read and
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to
address this problem without doing more harm than good.
Any solution I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or non-free
in subtler ways.
The only
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Why bother with the technical implementation at all? Just say that
you must prominently provide the information where to get the source
from you to network users of the work.
I take it means: you must prominently provide the information to
network users of the work as
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
I'm inclined to agree (though open to persuasion otherwise).
There seem to be two main positions one could take on this:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP
John Halton wrote:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP loophole come down
to a reluctance to accept the implications of the no
restrictions on use aspects of free software: How dare people
make money out of the software I've written?
I don't know about the AGPL.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:55:53AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked with
carets.
When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be directly
or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:16PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Anyway, I feel you miss the point where someone who licenses their
software under a license with an ASP-fix clause does not want to
prevent their consumers (the service providers) from making money,
any more than Linus Torvalds
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
I did not think it was probable that a company providing such a service
would have no place on the network connected to their activities, in
other words, a website. So the current wording does not actually mandate
that they *have* or *provide* such a location
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:07:51 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to
address this problem without doing more harm than good.
Any solution I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or
non-free in
* John Halton:
My question that started this thread was whether a simple ASP-fix
clause would make a work non-DFSG-free. The licensing terms *I* am
presenting for discussion is a Sleepycat+ASP-fix license which I
have already outlined on this list.
I suspect any ASP fix is going to run into
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
This is not really the case.
As long as you change the license
John Halton wrote:
PAY ME $25,000 AND I'LL LET YOU DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE FROM A
PASSWORD-PROTECTED AREA OF THIS SITE.
just as easily be read as meaning our headquarters in northern
Scotland.
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked
with carets.
When you make
Hello.
I just discovered that the people I was trying to help to migrate to the
GPL might be hesitating because they don't want their software to be
used to provide a service over the network without the source being
release, claiming that their service does not count as distribution (the
On Sunday 09 September 2007 10:22:55 Kumar Appaiah wrote:
Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or
not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images
released like this:
COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones
readme:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 11:44:20AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Looking at JFTP, it looks like this only applies to some of the icons, not
all of them. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the author to please
relicense the icons under a free software license.
Thanks for the tip.
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
%% Copying of this file is authorized only if either
%%
%% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and
%% directory name
%% (2) if you do make changes,
%% (a) you name it something other than the names included in the
%%
Hi debian-legal,
I have ITP'ed xymtex ( http://bugs.debian.org/304714 ). This collection
of LaTeX macros has the following license:
%% Copying of this file is authorized only if either
%%
%% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and
%% directory name
%% (2) if
32 matches
Mail list logo
