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 free software are explicitly crafted to reject such special licenses. DFSG §8 reads: 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian [..] Sorry, I just skimmed through this thread, but as we are talking about a package for non-free (due do sourceless libraries) that's not a problem, isn't it? No problem for a package in non-free to break another clause of the DFSG while already breaking some. As long as Debian has the right to distribute it (including Debian mirrors) it's okay for non-free. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f0ff5c5.4010...@schmehl.info
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 gives Debian as well as its mirrors and users the right to distribute it. That's enough for Debian non-free. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc7ee04.5060...@debian.org
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 the upstream pristine tarball. The course of action you mentioned is perfect otherwise. Sorry for being a legal nitpick, but it's only perfect, if you can be 100% sure, that the .doc is really the source. If there's a doubt (e.g. the pdf created with OOo looks different) it can be rejected. Also one should point out how the source is shipped in the copyright file, or the ftp-team might reject the package, as it could find the source in the orig tarball. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d9189a2.6050...@schmehl.info
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 a possible license problem in a *different version* of the software than debian ships. To the best of my knowledge, there is no license probleme per se. There are similar examples of pay for download, but then it's free software (sorry, forgot the name; but it's somewhere in the archive... I think it's a package starting with the letter b, but I can't remember details.) As far as I can see, the author of this software has even said in a message in this bug report that You can even make [this software] a GPL software[1], which I understand him to mean that the intent of the new license is to be GPL-compatible! Please scroll down in the very bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#60 The author of the software cleary stated, that he wished to no longer have his software distributed in Debian. Please also note, that the former maintainer of the imapsync package did no longer want to continue maintaining that package. So for Debian, the decission was to a) remove it or b) properly orphan it, and wait for someone to pick up maintainership or (more likely) leave it the state it is, bitrotting in our archive. Option b) would have also lead to problems supporting that package in Debian. Given the circumstances, I considered it quite unlikely, that someone would pick up maintainance of it, so I picked option a) (with the soon to be release of squeeze also in mind). I'm sorry, that the removal of the package causes problems for users, but I still think removal of the package is the best solution, but hopefully most of these users can migrate to similar tools in Debian. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d403c81.8000...@debian.org
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 we can't really use that license at all, can we? Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cc80846.5070...@schmehl.info
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 at least makes it plausible that an SVG image could contain dangerous code. Is this something we should change? Not worry about? Much Ado Nothing? 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? Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c29cb33.7040...@debian.org
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 modified works to be redistributed. Someone else could use that feature in a derived work, redistribute the result, thereby cause breakage. I still don't understand. Is it prudent to have such a clause, because someone else could embed a bad script, to be sure we are safe? (How could that happen, if someone else causes the problem and distributes that?) Or would it be prudent to do so, to allow / make it easier for others to embed code, as they would only like to do so, if they have such a clause? I'm sorry, I still don't get the point. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c2a1706.5030...@schmehl.info
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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bbeeaea.3030...@debian.org
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 must not discriminate against fields of endeavor (so people wanting to do evil must be able to), but this license doesn't seem to restrict redistribution, thus making this Good but no Evil software suited for non- free, no ? Yes, but as the author didn't define his terms, you can always argue, that whatever you do, is something good (for specific definition of good), and one could argue, that this phrase is therefore no restriction at all. A quite philosopher way to argue, therefore: However, I would strongly advise to not package that thing for Debian main; it smells like problems. Or did I misread your message ? Depends on your definition of read and message ;) (Sorry, could not resist.) Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb06f34.5030...@schmehl.info
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 Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. 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. However, I would strongly advise to not package that thing for Debian main; it smells like problems. Best regards, Alexander, not having his ftp-team hat on signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 question is whether that works for ftpmasters if we ship a ruby package that virtually chose a different license at different stages of the build process, but doesn't link together files built at those different stages. That is a really good question. Sorry, but I don't know the answer for that, yet... Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba73b5a.3090...@debian.org
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 fails from time to time, but thanks for the confidence ;) Ruby is licensed under the Ruby license, or GPLv2. The exact terms for the choice are: Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto m...@netlab.jp. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL version 2 (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: [ Ruby license ] No linking exception for linking ruby gpl-code with openssl? My understanding is as follow: As you use libreadline, which is GPLed, we ship ruby under the term of the GPL anyway. So we would need the link exception, wouldn't we? So, now let's assume, we get that from the ruby folks: When building ruby, two interesting extensions (separate .so files) are built. - readline.so is built by linking with libreadline5 (GPLv2) - openssl.so is built by linking with openssl. [..] Questions: 1/ Can we ship those files? 2/ Can we ship those files in the same binary package? I think so, yes. As we don't ship code, which links to both, libreadline and openssl, do we? 3/ Can we distribute a ruby application that require (that's the ruby keyword for loading libraries) both readline and openssl? I think we can do this, too. TTBOMK ruby code is interpreted at runtime, isn't it? So with such an application, we again don't ship code that is linked to both libreadline and openssl. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba3a603.90...@debian.org
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 this change would have been worth to be announced properly back when it was done. FWIW: Paul Wise added it to the agenda for the next issue of the DPN; it will be on second or third place. Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian logo on quilt; license issues?
[ CC-ing since I'm note sure, if you are reading the list ] Hi! KS schrieb: [..] A couple of years ago she wanted to make a quilt for me. As the discussion also involved open source at that time, I asked her why not just make me a small wall hanging of the Debian logo. She has worked on it for the last two years and has come up with a life size (about 6ft high) Debian logo (Open use logo) along with the Debian at the bottom. It is currently being displayed at an exhibition in Phoenix. At the time when I asked her to make it, I thought it would not be a problem as it was open use logo. But while browsing again on the Debian Logos page, I noticed the debian trademark licensing policy http://www.debian.org/trademark . Can the experts give their advice on this regarding any licensing issues involving the quilt artwork. Please take a look at http://www.debian.org/logos/index , the part about the open use logo with Debian reads as follows: This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. It seems to be the case for me; the Logo in the quilt is still a reference to our project (she created the quilt after hearing about the project and for you, from whom he heard about our project). The second paragraph of the license Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to http://www.debian.org/ if you use it on a web page. well... If you like you could ask to place 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 send me / point me to a picture of the quilt in the exhibition :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 could arrange a follow-up call to discuss. Uhm... So what does that mean for the games in contrib and non-free, where engine and data (artwork) are licensed under different licenses? Yours sincerely, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
