Re: DFSG-ness of two

2015-06-02 Thread Riley Baird
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: Re: DFSG-ness of two

2015-05-31 Thread Paul Gevers
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: DFSG-ness of two

2015-05-30 Thread Charles Plessy
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

2015-05-30 Thread Riley Baird
- 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

2015-05-30 Thread Riley Baird
- 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

2015-05-30 Thread Charles Plessy
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

Re: DFSG-ness of two

2015-05-29 Thread Riley Baird
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

2015-05-29 Thread Riley Baird
- 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

2015-05-29 Thread Charles Plessy
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

2015-05-29 Thread Francesco Poli
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