Re: abcde could move to main if vorbize support added
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:39:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Package: abcde Version: 1.1.2-1 Severity: wishlist If support for vorbize was added, abcde could move to main. (I'm assuming it's in contrib because it depends on a non-free mp3 encoder) No, actually it depends on unpackagable mp3 encoders. Except for the patent problem, they are completely free. It's sort of a weird way to put abcde in main, considering that very few people would actually use it with vorbize. But yes, this would put it in main. I'd use it with vorbize, I've been itching to play with that more and perhaps send a few bug reports and perhaps some patches. Ogg Vorbis being free of patent BS and about as good as 2/3 of the mp3 files on my drive, well, I may have a pile of CDs to re-rip soon. ...hmm, wonder if Vorbize can do something like VBR yet... -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 Culus OH MY GOD NOT A RANDOM QUOTE GENERATOR netgod surely you didnt think that was static? how lame would that be? :-)
Is this license DFSG-free?
I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it pass DFSG 1? Thanks, Andrew Stribblehill, Systems Programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England 8- Copyright 1999 by Dan Farmer. All rights reserved. Some individual files may be covered by other copyrights (this will be noted in the file itself.) Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such copies. No charge, other than an at-cost distribution fee, may be charged for copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without the express written consent of the copyright holders. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Re: Is this license DFSG-free?
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it pass DFSG 1? I don't think so. Also, this license does not explicitly allow modification and redistribution of modified forms. -- Sam.
Re: abcde could move to main if vorbize support added
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:00:16AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote: ...hmm, wonder if Vorbize can do something like VBR yet... Vorbize and oggenc write VBR files by default. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IMAPD license problem
Scripsit Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Under a provision of contract law valid at least within the US, that's not quite true. If the clause is ambiguous, any reasonable meaning you as licensee may derive (of course a court will determine whether or not the language COULD be construed that way) is valid. That's certainly no guarantee, but it's about as close as you're ever going to get with anything if someone starts talking lawsuits. I'm not intimately familiary with US law, but does that principle really apply when the licencee is in bad faith (as would clearly be the case here - given that we *know* how UW interprets their license, we cannot just decide to select another meaning, at least not unless we have actually acted upon our own reading before we learnt about UW's)? -- Henning Makholm Det må være spændende at bo på en kugle. Har I nogen sinde besøgt de egne, hvor folk går rundt med hovedet nedad?
Fwd: ITP: tct (The coroner's toolkit)
Andrew Stribblehill wrote: Could you confirm that the IBM public license is valid and that the below-mentioned mix of licenses is allowable in main? Thanks, Andrew Stribblehill Systems Programmer IT Service, University of Durham, England snip License: Parts are IBM Public License v1 (http://www.fish.com/tct/LICENSE) and the rest is a very slightly-modified BSD license (http://www.fish.com/tct/COPYRIGHT). Umm, I don't think that the slightly-modified BSD license is free, since it has the statement: No charge, other than an at-cost distribution fee, may be charged for copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without the express written consent of the copyright holders. This prevents someone from selling CD's to make a profit, which runs into problems with the DFSG. So it can't go in main. As for your original question, I don't think that there is a collision between the licenses. Section 3 of the IBM license talks about distributing under a different license. As long as the original IBM code is still available under the IBM license, everything is kosher. Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Chemical modelling software
Drew Parsons wrote: - viewmol (ftp://ccl.osc.edu/pub/chemistry/software/SOURCES/C/viewmol/) viewmol supplies source which compiles (and also an rpm, which segfaulted under potato). The copyright statement inside their documentation indicates that Permission to use, copy, and distribute VIEWMOL in its entirety, for non-commercial and non-military purposes, Both `for non-commercial and non-military purposes' make it non-free. is hereby granted without fee, provided that this license information and copyright notice appear in all copies. They go on to state Licenses for commercial use can be obtained from the author. without specifying what that license might entail (gratis or what?) They also state that Modification of the source code is permitted. , and invite any modifications to be sent to them for inclusion in the official code. This looks okay for non-free. I'm not so certain about viewmol, however. It's terms of copyright seem close in spirit to the free software guidelines, although I expect we would have check with the author about the meaning of the commercial use clause. You might want to talk to them about it, but perhaps this is typical in your field (and the author has a hope of eventually making a pile of money from some company that want the software). Peter
Re: IMAPD license problem
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:48:34PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I'm not intimately familiary with US law, but does that principle really apply when the licencee is in bad faith (as would clearly be the case here - given that we *know* how UW interprets their license, we cannot just decide to select another meaning, at least not unless we have actually acted upon our own reading before we learnt about UW's)? Excuse me, but given what UW has sent to us on this subject (nothing, so far), what is it that we know? -- Raul
Re: abcde could move to main if vorbize support added
We're starting to get off-topic on -legal here, but... I'll definately be using vorbis. In fact, I'm in the planning stages of a software project where I will PREFER encoded audio representations. Vorbis looks like it will be about perfect for me. On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Starner wrote: On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 11:16:07PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: Package: abcde Version: 1.1.2-1 Severity: wishlist If support for vorbize was added, abcde could move to main. (I'm assuming it's in contrib because it depends on a non-free mp3 encoder) No, actually it depends on unpackagable mp3 encoders. Except for the patent problem, they are completely free. It's sort of a weird way to put abcde in main, considering that very few people would actually use it with vorbize. But yes, this would put it in main. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu It was starting to rain on the night that they cried forever, It was blinding with snow on the night that they screamed goodbye. - Dio, Rock and Roll Children -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Chemical modelling software
On 21-Aug-00, 14:59 (CDT), Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: viewmol supplies source which compiles (and also an rpm, which segfaulted under potato). The copyright statement inside their documentation indicates that Permission to use, copy, and distribute VIEWMOL in its entirety, for non-commercial and non-military purposes, is hereby granted without fee, provided that this license information and copyright notice appear in all copies. They go on to state Licenses for commercial use can be obtained from the author. without specifying what that license might entail (gratis or what?) They also state that Modification of the source code is permitted. , and invite any modifications to be sent to them for inclusion in the official code. As Peter points out, non-commercial and non-military place it non-free. I also don't see any permission to distribute modified versions, which would prevent us from including it at all. This may well not be what they mean to say, though, so it might be worth enquiring. Steve
Re: Is this license DFSG-free?
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it pass DFSG 1? I don't think so. Also, this license does not explicitly allow modification and redistribution of modified forms. Agreed about DFSG 1, but I think that, given the following: No charge, other than an at-cost distribution fee, may be charged for copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without the express written consent of the copyright holders. ... it's reasonable to assume that derivations that are distributed without charge or at cost are permitted. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
