Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's

Jules Bean writes (Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's): ... There is a license. I quote from the book in my hands Copyright (c) 1997,1996 O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Thats a license. The most restrictive around. No, it's a copyright notice. It's precisely NOT any kind of

Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's

Ian Jackson writes (Re: APSL Hidden Nasty's): ... Copyright law makes it a civil offence to do certain things to a copyrighted work without permission (called a licence) from the copyright holder. Children can in most jurisdictions be held responsible for civil offences they commit. I should

Re: Corel's apt frontend

I think there is something that is being forgotten here. Corel are shipping several things, but presumably they are only dynamically linked. So the reason why they need a licence exemption isn't that their frontend is derivative of lib-apt, but rather that the copyright on lib-apt would require

Re: Corel's apt frontend

Henning Makholm writes (Re: Corel's apt frontend): The only way the copyright on lib-apt could become an issue at all is if there is something that is derivate of lib-abt. No, that's not true in this case. Read on. derivitate is the magic word that makes the copyright holder have anything

GCC M3 frontend (was Re: Corel's apt frontend)

Richard Stallman writes: What front-end is this? I know nothing about it as yet. If the GPL is being violated for GCC, the FSF needs to take action. But we need to know the facts first. Would someone please send me a description of the situation? As I understand it, DEC SRC (now part of

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Mike Bird writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free): Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal - - a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun. This is obviously not possible. Debian is not a legal

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

John Goerzen writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free): Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to indemnify Sun Who is purporting to commit SPI to indemnifying Sun ? AFAICT ftpmasters are indemnifying Sun. This is silly of them but probably not actually fatal.

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements): The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original announcement: SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT (JDK - THE SOFTWARE) TO YOU ONLY Yes, but who is

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements): * If a member project engages in activities that would jeopardize SPI's classification as a non-profit entity Things of that kind would be using SPI property or funds for unsuitable activities. Note that if Debian do it

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements): The other plausible interpretation is that SPI *is* on the hook, as the legal entity that owns servers that are distributing software. If you use your shell account at your ISP to distribute software, and the ISP concludes you

Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

Matthew Palmer writes (Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!): On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If you distribute binary images with a magazine and have something in that magazine saying if you want the source write to address with a photocopy

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

Nathanael Nerode writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue): Alternate suggested GR text: --- The Debian Project notes that many license texts are copyrighted works, licensed only under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue): Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is. This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that the license texts which have

Volunteer brickbat thrower needed in London (Tuesday 24th 6pm)

Quoting http://ossg.bcs.org/2007/07/24/: The Open Source Specialist Group (OSSG) will be holding an interactive event on Tuesday 24th July 2007 over a proposal to create a British Computer Society (BCS) Open Source Licence. Obviously this is a very bad idea. To make the point against

Re: transitive GPL (exim4, OpenSSL, mySQL and others)

Marc Haber writes (transitive GPL (exim4, OpenSSL, mySQL and others)): (1) Is it ok to change exim's SSL library to OpenSSL in the current setup without violating the GPL for some of the library currently in use You mentioned libpq and mysql. What other libraries are involved ? All of the

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Miriam Ruiz writes (Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free? Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, and there is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is very important to stop someone making the code effectively proprietary. Ian.

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): 2008/8/19 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If, however, you're using AGPLv3 software on your phone that allows other phone owners to play with you over bluetooth/wifi/etc without them needing to download a copy of the game from you, then you're

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): 2008/8/25 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be considered by our project as false advertising in grouping

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Arc Riley writes (Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?): To be honest, I just don't want our project to be in the middle of this given the situation; [stuff] I've been told that other AGPLv3 licensed projects in a greater state of stability are in the pipeline toward ftpmasters, which will set

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

Others have explained why this is not a critical bug in this specific case. (Although as an aside it seems quite incomprehensible to me that these projects, and Gnome in general, have effectively thrown away the source!) But there was one misunderstanding here which I think is important to

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

Matthew Johnson writes (Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation): Well, if we take the position that it's not copyrightable then for our point of view it's not a problem what the licence is, we can distribute in main. It's also not a problem form his PoV, because he's

Re: issues with the AGPL

I don't think there are any problems with the AGPL and indeed I might well consider using the AGPL for works of my own. I don't have time now to write a detailed rebuttal to each of Bill's points, I'm afraid. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Unteralterbach visual novel (was: Re: Introduction)

Bas Wijnen writes (Unteralterbach visual novel (was: Re: Introduction)): Summary: I've tried the game, and don't think it's suitable for Debian. Thank you for your analysis. I appreciate your effort, and your taking the psychological risk of exposure to something unpleasant and disturbing.

Re: CC-BY-SA-4.0

Dmitry Smirnov writes (CC-BY-SA-4.0): It just came to my attention that Creative Commons published their new license CC-BY-SA-4.0 [1]. Whilst I didn't read the text of the new license yet I'd like to invite experts to comment on its DFSG compatibility and hopefully update DFSGLicenses

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

Philipp Kern writes (Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL): Does that mean that people calling one of these from a script or a web service (e.g. invoices using texlive-bin) will need to adhere to the AGPL as well? Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source availability

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

Ian Jackson writes (Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL): Philipp Kern writes (Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL): Does that mean that people calling one of these from a script or a web service (e.g. invoices using texlive-bin) will need to adhere to the AGPL as well? Yes

Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF

Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF): Quoting Turkey Breast (2014-05-21 14:22:23) I've made a Bitcoin library, and am seeking inclusion into Debian. We (me and the mentor) are seeking guidance going forwards over a license issue. ...

AfferoGPL for Debian packaging work? [was: Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF]

Francesco Poli writes (AfferoGPL for Debian packaging work? [was: Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF]): On Wed, 21 May 2014 18:06:38 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: For the record, my concern was not the AGPL (I am a fan of that too, and will most likely use it

Re: May I download the releases after notification stopped ?

AOKI Akio writes (May I download the releases after notification stopped ?): Since I found the following sentences in the archives for debian-legal, I would like to have advice just on exporting Debian's software. Subject: Re: Inquire of ECCN/LE of Debian 6.05 From: Steve Langasek

Re: May I download the releases after notification stopped ?

AOKI Akio writes (Re: May I download the releases after notification stopped ?): I understand. So I talked with a specialist in such issues, and he required me to gather as many materials indicating reasonable grounds to use TSU as possible. I don't understand what this means. I hope you

Re: Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format

Mattias Ellert writes (Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format): Various standardization bodies like e.g. W3C and OASIS that publish data communication standards, provide xsd and/or wsdl files describing these standards. These files, though machine readable and parsable by various

Re: trademark vs. renamed derivates

Steve Langasek writes (Re: trademark vs. renamed derivates): On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:24:28PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: is there any example language for something like the following around already, which I could reuse? “This software Y is based on the software X, which was written

Re: trademark vs. renamed derivates

Ian Jackson writes (Re: trademark vs. renamed derivates): So what Steve means is that you can just say: This package Y is based on the program X from company Z, but has been modified by Debian and others. But, it occurs to me to ask: What is this program ? It may be that renaming

Re: Use of Debian Linux as basis of commercially dsitributed appliance box

Renner, Clemens writes (Use of Debian Linux as basis of commercially dsitributed appliance box): --- 8 --- We like Debian and want to use it as the underlying OS for building an appliance box for our customers (one of the keywords seems to be vertical market). Do we need to take special

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

There has been an ongoing and wholly unproductive conversation on -legal about some difficulties with the PHP licence. Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ? Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ? If so I would be happy to write up a summary of

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ? Do we have a relationship with the SFLC we could use for this ? Sure, we could ask for advice from SFLC about

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Draft question for SFLC: Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant upstreams. We are concerned here with the PHP 3.0 Licence, which can be found here: http://php.net/license/3_0.txt There are two

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Francesco Poli writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): Wait! This license version is already obsolete! Thanks for pointing that out. Please revise your draft in light of the current PHP License, version 3.01: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt

Re: Legality of analysing DSDT table

Mateusz Jończyk writes (Legality of analysing DSDT table): I am working on some bug in Linux kernel that is probably somehow related to ACPI. Would it be legal if a bug reporter in India sent me his DSDT table and I would then decompile and analyse it? You seem to be in Poland. I think there

Re: Zend Engine License

Riley Baird writes (Re: Zend Engine License): On 02/08/14 16:30, MJ Ray wrote: I notice that Zend framework seems to be under a BSD style licence, without that sort of clause. It is in the php5 package. Here is the d/copyright file:

Re: Translated License

Georg Pfeiffer writes (Translated License): We intend to give the whole project a default license wich is a german translation of the MIT license [2]. The english text is included. Our intention is, that the german text shall be more clear and more convenient to german project members

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Charles Plessy writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): I think that it is important that a few of the ‘some members’ would identify themselves in support for that request, and explain what they would do if the worries expressed below turned out to be true. At the moment people are

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Francesco Poli writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:59:11 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: Paragraph 6 of the main licence text requires this notice: This product includes PHP software, freely available from http://www.php.net/software/. I would also

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

(-project dropped from the CC) MJ Ray writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): Secondly, unless it says otherwise, a naming restriction in a copyright licence doesn't permit honest source attribution and all the other nominative and fair uses that a trademark would. This is more of a

PHP licence SFLC questions draft v3

. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian Jackson personal email: ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk These opinions are my own.http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/ PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: PHP licence SFLC questions draft v3

Ian Jackson writes (PHP licence SFLC questions draft v3): Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant upstreams. We would like some advice. We are concerned here with the PHP 3.01 Licences, which

Re: Translated License

Georg Pfeiffer writes (Re: Translated License): Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: There is nothing wrong with a copyright licence in German. Thank you very much for this clear position, wich seemed to be mine only for discouraging long times :D My german combattants

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

MJ Ray writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): On 4 August 2014 13:26:11 GMT+01:00, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Can you please confirm that the question I put in my draft questions for SFLC, on this subject, addresses this point ? If I haven't fully captured

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

Dariusz Dwornikowski writes (Re: A clarification with dual licensing): And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to SSL - package B GPL links to package A - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a violation

Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian

Steve M. Robbins writes (Re: Status of uw-prism packaging for Debian): My guess is that the legality of distribution hinges on how the software is represented. For example, [1] defines device as: any article, instrument, apparatus or contrivance, including any component, part

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Charles Plessy writes (Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+): Note that the importance is compatibility. You can definitely chose a more permissive license, like CC0, MIT, etc. if you wish so. I think that best practice is to choose a very permissive licence for the Debian packaging files,

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the license GPL-3+ or not? No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if you use that, but that's presumably not what you mean.) I didn't

Re: PHP licence SFLC questions draft v4

Draft question for SFLC: (there are no changes since v3 apart from fixes to the numbering of some section cross-references) Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by relevant upstreams. We would like some

Re: PHP licence SFLC questions draft v4

Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: PHP licence SFLC questions draft v4): Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (2014-08-21): We are concerned here with the PHP 3.01 Licences, which can be found here: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt I might have missed them, but I don't think there were any

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Eriberto Mota writes (Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+): Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and debian.tar.xz. Is this? But,

Re: openjdk-8 upstream limits source distribution?

Steven Chamberlain writes (openjdk-8 upstream limits source distribution?): This is an odd statement for GPLv2 code: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk8/ : International Use Restrictions Due to limited intellectual property protection and enforcement in certain countries, the JDK

Re: openjdk-8 upstream limits source distribution?

Steven Chamberlain writes (Re: openjdk-8 upstream limits source distribution?): On 03/09/14 14:21, Ian Jackson wrote: The JDK8 licence is GPL-incompatible. The same statement doesn't seem to be present in the LICENSE file inside the tarball. So, someone who already has a JDK8 source

Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright

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 ... # # This

Re: Simple doubt about section to use

Eriberto Mota writes (Simple doubt about section to use): I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). From upstream[1]: This seems like a package manager. My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we have

Re: Simple doubt about section to use

Pierre Rudloff writes (Re: Simple doubt about section to use): Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games' licence. So I guess we should add it to contrib ? I think so, I'm afraid. Maybe there is part of it that doesn't involve the library feature, or in other

Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright

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 is in the

Re: jmapviewer: bing logo

Felix Natter writes (jmapviewer: bing logo): I as the package author originally thought that we should not advertise bing, but Sebastiaan from debian-gis argues that we violated MS terms of use by not including it (please see the PDF link included in that mail): I agree that we should avoid

Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing

Ben Finney writes (Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing): The problem you point out, though, still remains: None of the above seems to constitute a *grant* of license, IMO. That would take the form of the copyright holder explicitly stating “recipient foo may do specific action bar under

Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

Francesco Poli writes (Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0): I am seeking help on bug #689919. I disagree with all of your objections to #689919. The only one of those objections that has any substance is the complaint about the `reasonable efforts ... obtain assent' clause. However, the licence

Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

Walter Landry writes (Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0): This is the case we have today with svn_load_dirs. Are you saying that we should not distribute svn_load_dirs until we get this clarification? I think it would be better to clarify this, but that I don't think the existing situation

Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

Francesco Poli writes (Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0): On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 + Ian Jackson wrote: I disagree with all of your objections to #689919. Could you please write a (short, but reasoned) point-by-point rebuttal of my license analysis? I'm afraid I don't have time

Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches

Don Armstrong writes (Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches): On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Christoph Biedl wrote: every now and then I receive submissions (i.e. patches) by e-mail for packages I maintain. Sometimes a disclaimer¹ is part of that message, a text that denies me from doing certain

Re: Debian chroot (main apt source list) inside a GPL v3 Android app

Apps Embedded writes (Debian chroot (main apt source list) inside a GPL v3 Android app): We have developped an open-source Android app based on a Debian wheezy chroot. This Android app licence is GPL v3. Because licence compatibility could be a nightmare, we would like to verify that

Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer

Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer): But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the archive. It would

Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts

Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts): On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Ben Finney writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts): For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian packaging copyright holders

Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts

Ben Finney writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts): For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work. I disagree both with

Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement

Paul Wise writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Anton Gladky wrote: non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable Does this mean that people getting a copy of the software from Debian

Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement

Anton Gladky writes (MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): Particularly, there is a 3rd-party code from hardware-manufacturer, which is licensed under their own MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement V2 license [2]. ... At the first look, it is a free one: STMicroelectronics (“ST”)

Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement

Simon McVittie writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): Only the ftp-masters can give you a canonical yes or no on what legal risk they are prepared to accept for non-free (or for that matter, for contrib or main), but they'd almost certainly want to see the other stuff in Restriction

Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement

Anton Gladky writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): Thanks Ian for clarifying. I am discussing with OpenPilot-upstream possible solutions to solve the issue. The package without firmware is not quite useful. All of the supported hardware has chips which require the problematic ST

Re: GPL + question

Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: GPL + question): They *can* since the work as modified *can* be distributed under the terms of the GPLv3+, *without* changing the original work's license, but the *file* can be distributed as GPLv3+, since that's the minimum license needed to comply with all parts.

Re: CISST licence and DFSG

Jochen Sprickerhof writes ("CISST licence and DFSG"): > as part of packaging ROS [1] for Debian, I've found a file [2] under the > CISST licence [3]. Can someone comment on the DFSG compatibility of it? IMO this licence is DFSG-free. I disagree with Ben Finney and Francesco Poli. (It's not a

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"): > Eriberto Mota writes: > > Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package > > moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong? > > The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”: > >

Re: Source files

Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Source files"): > sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding > that, the world being in perpetual change, the definition of source > will one day become an open question again. My favorite guess is > that at some point, it will be argued that the

Re: r-cran-afex package, violates the GPL?

Jonathon Love writes ("r-cran-afex package, violates the GPL?"): > i've just packaged and submitted the r-cran-afex package, and it has > been accepted > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797819 > > but now i'm wondering if it doesn't violate the GPL2. > > it is released under

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

(resending because my MUA messed up) Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions"): > When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did > not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question > was part of the

Re: Establishing dialogue between the Debian project and OGC regarding Document & Software Notice terms

Ben Finney writes ("Re: Establishing dialogue between the Debian project and OGC regarding Document & Software Notice terms"): > The Social Contract for the Debian Project explicitly states that works > acceptable for inclusion in Debian must not have conditions specific to > Debian. > > So the

Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog

Ben Finney writes ("Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog"): > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > But the requirement for a click-through can and should be removed. > > Whether a particular “build an installer” tool

Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog

Florian Weimer writes ("Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog"): > * Mark Weyer: > > If its license is pristine GPL then you as a maintainer have the right to > > remove the click-wrap functionality. > > You may not completely remove any such notifications, though. From >

Re: NIST data licenses/copyright

PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel writes ("NIST data licenses/copyright"): > I am packaging something which contain some NIST data [1]. The > license refered by is reproduce here. > > I would like to know if this license is DFSG-free or not. ... > License Information for NIST data (other than Standard

Re: sct public domain

Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"): > Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line: > /* public domain, do as you wish Seems like a clear enough intent to dedicate to the public domain, along with a permission to deal freely. So yes. > Secondly, sct.c contains these lines: > > /*

Re: sct public domain

Jacob Adams writes ("Re: sct public domain"): > On 06/24/2016 04:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"): > >> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line: > >> /* public domain, do as you wish > > > >

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Paul Wise writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Are there any parts of Tor which currently have GPL-incompatible > > licences ? (Hopefully not.) > > Tor uses OpenSSL. Bah. W

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

LC laywer, as I don't have the lawyer's consent to share their personal identity. Ian. From: [redacted by iwj] <[redacted]@softwarefreedom.org> To: Neil McGovern <[redacted]@halon.org.uk>, Neil <lea...@debian.org> CC: Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Debian FTP

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > I think that entire FOSS Exception statement was imported from some other > project. I'll get our legal people to have a look at what that's meant to > mean and see if we can get clarification. Please do. It seems

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

Nick Mathewson writes ("Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > I'm a developer on the Tor Project. We're thinking of adding a new > cryptographic algorithm to Tor in order to improve our security > against possible advances in quantum computation. > > Many Tor servers run on

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

l McGovern <n...@halon.org.uk>, Neil <lea...@debian.org> CC: Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Debian FTP Masters <ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> Subject: Re: PHP license questions Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:38:58 -0400 Message-ID: <558b1562.1050...@softwarefreedom.org>

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > Knoppix needs: > > > > - permission from upstream for Knoppix modify and redistribute the > > modified ver

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

Ben Finney writes ("Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries"): > One large problem: I can't see that the above conditions grant freedom > to redistribute in modified or unmodified form. That fails the DFSG, by > my reading. This is not a problem here for the same reason that it is

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under > the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3. Such a sublicensing permission is

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions"): > Thanks for the reply. Sorry about the delay replying. This one is more complicated than most. > I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that > originally not answered or

Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status

William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"): > On the FOSS Exception, > https://github.com/NTRUOpenSourceProject/ntru-crypto/blob/master/FOSS%20Exception.md: > the intent here is to protect the effectiveness of the GPL. As noted, > clause 2b requires that "The

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

Riley Baird writes ("Re: Missing license text in upstream packages"): > Generally, it would be okay just to state the license name. However, > because of the wide variety of BSD licenses out there, I worry that > there might be multiple 3 clause BSD licenses and it's unclear which > the author

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

Ben Finney writes ("Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries"): > The cases are different, this license text grants no permission to > redistribute at all. > > If you think it does, what text do you see that grants permission to > redistribute in modified or unmodified form? You

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

Ben Finney wrote: >Sven Bartscher writes: >> but its content is not very overwhelming: >> >> Copyright >> BSD license ... >> I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is >> this right? I think it's

  1   2   >