Re: [Fwd: Memo on video game thumbnails]

Hi! Mario S Mendolaro schrieb: The attached memo reflects our thoughts on the thumbnail screenshots issue. In it we conclude that it is best to distribute each thumbnail under the same license as the original game. We're happy to follow up with any questions you may have or we

Re: Debian logo on quilt; license issues?

a sign nearby the quilt in the exhibition (More information about the Debian operating system can be found at http://www.debian.org; or something similar), but it's not necessary. Best regards, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl, Debian Spokesperson PS: Just out of curiosity I would appreciate, if could

Re: Open logo license changed

Hi! MJ Ray schrieb: Others have asked both DPL and Debian Press Team to announce it - without answer as far as I know. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been announced, [..] Uhm... Sorry, I didn't got such mail via [EMAIL PROTECTED] nor via [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who asked? And when? I think

Re: Unclear license situation in ruby1.8 (GPL, SSL, Ruby license)

Hi! Lucas Nussbaum schrieb: We (Ruby maintainers) are a bit confused by the situation of the ruby1.8 package. We think we are fine (the package has been in Debian for years, has probably been reviewed by ftpmasters many times), but we are not sure anymore why we are fine ;) Even the ftp-team

Re: Unclear license situation in ruby1.8 (GPL, SSL, Ruby license)

Hi! Lucas Nussbaum schrieb: Erm. See http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2982 for the upstream bug. An upstream developer replied saying: When you want to link openssl, you use Ruby's. When you want to link readline, you use GPL. I read the bug report. Hmmm... I guess that the

Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Hi! Josselin Mouette schrieb: Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with crockford himself. His final answer: If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not use the software. Could you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? [..] The

Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Hi! Didier 'OdyX' Raboud schrieb: Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: Josselin Mouette schrieb: Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of good or evil one could argue, that everything is good... for someone. We

Re: Does this license meet DSFG?

Hi! Dererk schrieb: Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements, but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it. That's perfect. GPL with OpenSSl linking exception. You couldn't ask for more :) Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?

Hi! Am 27.06.2010 15:13, schrieb Ben Finney: [ SVG logo without no warranty waiver ] This does seem to be a valid concern. The SVG standard allows for documents to contain executable code for animation with ECMAScript URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/animate.html#DOMAnimationExample. So that

Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?

Hi! Am 29.06.2010 14:49, schrieb Ben Finney: [ SVG logo without no warranty waiver ] I think it would be prudent to add a warranty disclaimer like those found in Expat license terms or similar. Why do we need a warranty waiver for a feature, we don't actually use? Because we also allow

Re: Fit for non-free?

Hi! Am 21.10.2010 04:32, schrieb Paul Wise: [3] http://www.eveonline.com/community/fs_agreement.asp For reference, here is the full text of this agreement: AGREEMENT FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE For Fan and News Sites, Online Radio Stations and Chat Venues Uhm, Debian is neither of these, so

Re: Bug#609845: ftp.debian.org: RM: imapsync -- RoM; author doesn't want us to distribute his program

Hi Jeff! Am 26.01.2011 14:22, schrieb Jeff Epler: I do not understand why you wish to remove from the debian archive software that debian users may rely on (as far as I can see from the original report, not everyone's use of the version Debian ships hits the reported problem), just because of

Re: unsourced pdf in tarball; src available from ftp site;

Hi! Am 29.03.2011 01:25, schrieb Paul Wise: .doc files are usually binary so you won't be able to include it as a patch. Instead I think you can use dpkg-source v3 and include a second orig.tar.gz named orig-docsrc.tar.gz (check the dpkg-source manual page for info on that). You can then use

Re: Font license

Hi! Am 09.05.2011 15:09, schrieb أحمد المحمودي: Permission is hereby granted, Free of Cost, to any person obtaining a copy of this Font accompanying this license, the rights to Use, Copy, Distribute, subject to the following conditions: [..] Is that acceptable in Debian non-free ? That

Re: legal aspects of packaging nagios-sap-ccms

Hi! Am 13.01.2012 07:16, schrieb Ben Finney: Does that mean Debian also has permission to distribute? Given that “that latter” is presumably referring to “OpenSUSE have a special license to distribute”, then it's worth pointing out that (as Paul is probably aware) Debian's guidelines for