#include
* MJ Ray [Fri, Sep 15 2006, 10:53:03PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would like to ask you to give us some days to find a peacefull
> > solution without starting another flamewar. But, hey, you already did it
> > by Cc'ing debian-le
r-later.
> >>
> >> (dvdrtools is in non-free solely because of the libscg "You may not"
> >lines, which
> >> are *also* present in cdrkit. Um there's some small problem there.)
> >
> >We need to make a choice right now:
> >
> >a
#include
* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU [Tue, Jul 18 2006, 03:38:32AM]:
> Too bad that the moist important GNU/Linux project and the most important
> GNU/Linux community can't afford a good lawyer to explain you how to protect
> your mark.
>
> Like Henning Makholm said, it's better not having me as a u
#include
* Andrew Donnellan [Mon, Jun 05 2006, 07:13:29AM]:
> >No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the
> >problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In
> >the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel
> >list. They should just n
#include
* Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]:
> >For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> >maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
> >something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew
> >Donnella
#include
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
> > >> D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
> > >contains > invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using
> > >device > names), so it
#include
* Anthony DeRobertis [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 11:42:58AM]:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
> >
> >
> Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
> is in main?
I am waiting for the answer of its maintainer
#include
* Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
> long lines, but that's how it's written):
>
> ---BEGIN QUOTE---
> /*
>* Begin restricted code for quality assura
#include
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:44:54PM]:
> On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> > license?
>
> And what's the scale and gradati
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools package
with references to a CDDL license context.
In #35
#include
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:06:11PM]:
> On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
> > GPL context looks slightly absurd.
>
> Slightly?!
>
>
#include
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:15:11AM]:
> >Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
> >You did not even copy it to the report.
> >
> >
>
> slmodem-2.9.9e-pre1a/COPYING
>
>
> /*
> *
> *Copyright (c) 2001, Smart Link Ltd.
> *All rights res
#include
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 12:46:42AM]:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >I though I have written that above.
> >
> >
>
> Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an
> interchangeable license, especially since you are the o
#include
* Kel Modderman [Fri, Feb 24 2006, 11:05:37PM]:
> Package: sl-modem-source
> Version: 2.9.9d+e-pre2-2
> |Severity: grave
>
> +sl-modem (2.9.9d+e-pre2-1) unstable; urgency=low
> +
> + * New upstream pre-release (closes: #327588)
> + * added sv.po from Daniel Nylander (closes: #330436)
>
Hello,
I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which
covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is
free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and
may be acceptable for main if one can extract the relevant parts from
all the bla
#include
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]:
> possible non-
> developers developers developers
> -
> option 1 ("no")
#include
Walter Landry wrote on Wed Feb 06, 2002 um 12:17:59PM:
> > > This rather long paragraph means that I can't take out some code
> > > covered by patents and use it to extend my favorite text editor.
> > > That would count as an additional restriction, and thus
> > > GPL-incompatible.
Okay
Hello,
recently I was contacted by an Intel employee, asking to provide support
for their new e1000 Gigabit Adapters in Debian Linux. Implementation is
not a problem since I do already maintain some kernel-modules packages
and kernel-patch-ethernet-drivers package. But the license is a bit
vague (
#include
Walter Landry wrote on Mon Sep 24, 2001 um 10:44:03AM:
> > But how does this comply with the GPL? As far as I can see, the kernel
> > guys have been doing this for a while (see below) and the kernel is
> > still GPLed.
>
> This was a point of some contention a few months ago. Look at t
#include
Eduard Bloch wrote on Fri Sep 21, 2001 um 05:24:10PM:
> But how does this comply with the GPL? As far as I can see, the kernel
> guys have been doing this for a while (see below) and the kernel is
> still GPLed.
Okay, so if nobody has hints for me, I will upload to main soon
I am going to package the DVB driver for Siemens-based cards.
Unfortunately, this cards does not have a ROM onboard so the firmware
must be loaded using the driver.
The company which created the firmware has released their Linux drivers
under the GPL and included the binary firmware files in the p
Hi,
could anyone comment the attached license? Is it suitable for non-free,
or even contrib?
-- UNACE-SOURCE v1.2b (extract-util) --
the source may be distributed and used,
but I,Marcel Lemke, retain ownership of
the copyrights to the source.
---
WWW:
http:/
#include
David Starner wrote on Sun Apr 29, 2001 um 11:03:48PM:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:59:02PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > epsUtils
> >
> >
> > The GPL apply wit the following ammendment.
>
> In what way does the GPL apply? The author apparen
June 1991
[...]
Gr{us,eeting}s,
Eduard.
--
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; HP: http://eduard.bloch.com/edecosi
0xEDF008C5(GnuPG): E6EB 98E2 B885 8FF0 6C04 5C1D E106 481E EDF0 08C5
**
No, really: Outlook Express is a
Anyways, yesterday, I uploaded an updated version to incoming under the
same license. Trying again...
Gr{us,eeting}s,
Eduard.
--
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; HP: http://eduard.bloch.com/edecosi
0xEDF008C5(GnuPG): E6EB 98E2 B885 8FF0 6C04 5C1D E106 481E EDF0 08C5
pgpc8G9appsNi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
table for Debian main.
MfG,
Eduard.
--
========
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; HP: http://eduard.bloch.com/edecosi
0xEDF008C5(GnuPG): E6EB 98E2 B885 8FF0 6C04 5C1D E106 481E EDF0 08C5
**
#exclude
like this
solution and preffer the current license which is just less restrictive.
Gr{us,eeting}s,
Eduard.
--
========
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; HP: http://eduard.bloch.com/edecosi
0xEDF008C5(GnuPG): E6EB 98E2 B885 8FF0 6C0
27 matches
Mail list logo
