Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Hello Florent,
you can decouple the two issues:
- The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do
not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release.
- You can work on the resolving the apparent
Hi,
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's
probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified
legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe.
OK, I see.
[...]
I wouldn't want to
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright):
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and
that simply stating This program
Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective
divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients
operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable —
In addition to what Ian said, Debian already accepts Public Domain
software, even though public
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright):
Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an
effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where
Debian recipients operate
Le Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 06:50:49PM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit :
[ Remainder: this thread is about a file whose copyright/licensing
statement is of the form:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and
that simply stating This program is in the public domain is not
enough to make it so in general.
I've been a primary
Thank you for your replies. It's a pity that properly releasing
something in the public domain is apparently so difficult. The intent
here was to make sure that anyone be free to copy anything from this
file and use it in derivative works without restriction since it is a
demo for a library.
Hello,
I have a few questions regarding public domain and DEP-5-compliant
debian/copyright files:
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit :
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public domain.
but, as I
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public domain.
but, as I understand it, public domain is the
I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly
marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license
conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0
URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO.
If they really want public domain,
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright):
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal
documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author.
We would hope so, yes. They also take into account the intent of the
*current* copyright holder.
Courts
14 matches
Mail list logo
