Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
Hello Florian Weimer, Am 2012-08-09 21:52:25, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: * Michelle Konzack: I have Adobe Ilustrator (just a standard installation from CD with the legal serialnumber) runing under WINE and if I create an EPS, it has the same header! Does this now mean, I have not the right to distrigbute my work freely? Probably yes. EPS files created by Adobe Illustrator contain the image information as used by Illustrator, together with a Postscript program which render the image information on a Postscript interpreter. The Postscript program is a real program, and the variant in the EPS file is not the original source, and I doubt source code is available under a free license. Sounds not realy funny. This would even mean, if we work together, and I build the EPS filee and I give it to you (the OSS guy) to review and continue the work on it, it would be a violation of the Adobe License. This situation is a real problem, (not only for Debian) because the person which continue the work could use a Freelancer Website (me too) where both, the owner of the document and the contractor run into juridical trouble cause the Adobe license. I am not realy sure, if this License is realy legal. I do not know for the rest of the world, bur in the European Community, there was a judgement (can not remember wat it exactly was) some times ago, because a similar thing. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux Internet Service Provider, Cloud Computing http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ itsystems@tdnet Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de Owner Michelle Konzack Gewerbe Strasse 3 Tel office: +49-176-86004575 77694 Kehl Tel mobil: +49-177-9351947 Germany Tel mobil: +33-6-61925193 (France) USt-ID: DE 278 049 239 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
Hello Bernhard R. Link, Am 2012-08-01 00:45:27, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: If someone claims he has a license from Adobe, then well, believe him unless you run into some statement from Adobe that they do not give away any licenses like that. If someone just claims it is under a free license but does not even refer to those parts having a different copyright, then it gets unlikely enough in my eyes that one has to assume the default of the law: no permission at all. I have Adobe Ilustrator (just a standard installation from CD with the legal serialnumber) runing under WINE and if I create an EPS, it has the same header! Does this now mean, I have not the right to distrigbute my work freely? I do not think so, because otherwise Adobe would have any rights on my work! have you ever looked at some EULAs? A quick look at http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ makes me think this is quite unlikely. (If I read this correctly, some things you are allowed to embed, but only verbatimly and for specific purposes, but the limits are quite absurd and I'm not sure it even gives permission to distribute for all the stuff you find in some postscript files). Hmmm, it does not mather what I do with my Adobe Ilustrator, but the License Header is always there... it seems to be a standard header from the EPS module (export filter). Bernhard R. Link Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux Internet Service Provider, Cloud Computing http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ itsystems@tdnet Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de Owner Michelle Konzack Gewerbe Strasse 3 Tel office: +49-176-86004575 77694 Kehl Tel mobil: +49-177-9351947 Germany Tel mobil: +33-6-61925193 (France) USt-ID: DE 278 049 239 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
Hello Bernhard R. Link, Am 2012-08-05 08:59:30, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: | 16.6.3 Customer may take a copy of the font(s) Customer has used for a | particular file to a commercial printer or other service bureau, and | such service bureau may use the font(s) to process its file, provided | such service bureau has a valid license to use that particular font | software. So, if BRL is my customer and bring me a PDF file with embedded Adobe fonts into my printing office, where I use xpdf to print it out, I am screwed, because I have no Adobe License? WTF? This also does not look like Adobe is of the opinion that an author using Adobe products to produce some documents is free to do with those documents as they please. Yes, it seems! Legal disclaimer: I've no idea about how law works exactly and even less what the law in your country is. Get a lawyer if you want more than mere arguments why the situation might not be how we all think it should be in an ideal world. Bernhard R. Link Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux Internet Service Provider, Cloud Computing http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ itsystems@tdnet Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de Owner Michelle Konzack Gewerbe Strasse 3 Tel office: +49-176-86004575 77694 Kehl Tel mobil: +49-177-9351947 Germany Tel mobil: +33-6-61925193 (France) USt-ID: DE 278 049 239 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image
Hello Bart Martens, Am 2012-08-05 22:12:31, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:59:14PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: I have Adobe Ilustrator (just a standard installation from CD with the legal serialnumber) runing under WINE and if I create an EPS, it has the same header! Does this now mean, I have not the right to distrigbute my work freely? I do not think so, because otherwise Adobe would have any rights on my work! You have copyright on your own work. Adobe has copyright on Adobe's work. Hmmm, it does not mather what I do with my Adobe Ilustrator, but the License Header is always there... it seems to be a standard header from the EPS module (export filter). License header or copyright header ? Sorry, mean copyright header like the ones from OP. And since there is not written, WHAT is copyrighted, one can think, my WHOLE work is copyrighted by Adobe. Which mean, I have not the right to distribute my own work freely, because there are no infos about the copyright lines and what they are covering. I have made only a big circle on a blank page and saved it as EPS. I have the impression, the copyright Lines mean the Adobe Ilustrator software and nothing more... Regards, Bart Martens Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux Internet Service Provider, Cloud Computing http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ itsystems@tdnet Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de Owner Michelle Konzack Gewerbe Strasse 3 Tel office: +49-176-86004575 77694 Kehl Tel mobil: +49-177-9351947 Germany Tel mobil: +33-6-61925193 (France) USt-ID: DE 278 049 239 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Hello Francesco, Am 2008-08-29 23:56:56, schrieb Francesco Poli: If you're really worried about this, upload it to two different free VCS services. They still may be off-line at the same time: it's less likely, but still possible. And therefore I have *two* services to monitor, to check whether I have to re-upload to a third place! :-( Are you joking? http://www.simtel.net/ http://www.linuxberg.com/ The have several 100 mirrors worldwide... Also you could upload to ftp://ftp.wustel.edu/ which has a mirror in TByte sice http://you_favorte_freehosting_provider_here/ I know at least over 300 locations where you can upload your source code and binaries. Even the providers http://www.freenet.de/ and http://www.free.fr/ offering such services... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Am 2008-08-28 10:46:58, schrieb MJ Ray: So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced distribution of source code is a desirable effect, but it's distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable Launchpad webapp? I am missing words for it... :-/ Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
Sorrx for the late answer but found your message blocked in my incoming queue... Am 2008-08-20 22:25:37, schrieb David Martínez Martí: On Wednesday 20 August 2008 19:53:46 Arc Riley wrote: At the risk of repeating myself, I don't believe this technical challenge of reliably hosting code poses a serious hurdle to compliance with this license. The problem with this license is, that anyone that tries to use and/or modify it must distribute it to third parties. I don't think that can be free. Even the GPL allow you to ask for a reliable fee if you want the sourcecode... I am working with a small group of Ex-Militaries and IT specialists on a Game which generaly under GPL version 3 but can not distribute, because we can not distribut a SOURCE tarball of 52 GByte (90% are videos in original made generaly by my self) and arroud 14 GByte of binaries/data. So IF we open the Game (it is a strategic/action Game like Fleet Command and about real conflict szenarios), and someone want a copy of the source he/she has to pay a fee for the sourceode on HARD medias like DVD20 or BlueRay and of course to pay the time we need to produce and verify the medias before distributing... So FREE distribution is not posibel in any kind... Please note, that my friends am me want to get a 19/42U Rack @Hetzner in Germany and there, wee have to pay 0.29€ (Euro) per GByte traffic... Offering FREE downloads would leed like a DDoS... (15€ per source dl) What if someone uses that software using a network over WAP, or GSM tecnology? (Mobile internet conections are slower and limited by Mbytes) And then why do you want to offer public access to the server? There is some logic missing... Wait. You're thinking about public source code, not free software. Free software can be modified, used, distributed and selled without making it You suld think about the phrase: Free software can be modified I know MANY software which is FREE but can not be modifiesd because there is no sourcode available. public. Don't think that someone will like your idea about sharing the code in public servers. I place my own code in public servers, I like that. But there are other people that doesn't like that. ... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#492623: ttf-liberation: Trademark prevents modifications
Hello *, Am 2008-07-27 21:20:31, schrieb Julian Andres Klode: Quoting the license: The LIBERATION trademark is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. This agreement does not permit Client to distribute modified versions of the Software using Red Hat's trademarks. If Client makes a redistribution of a modified version of the Software, then Client must modify the files names to remove any reference to the Red Hat trademarks and must not use the Red Hat trademarks in any way to reference or promote the modified Software. If you modify the files, you must - Rename the fonts to remove any reference to Liberation - Not install the fonts as liberation - Rename the binary package and the source package - Change the description to remove all references to Liberation and Red Hat. This makes updates almost impossible. Why? For, I think 2 years, there was already a discusion and the result was, that the ORIGINAL authors have the right by the GPL to do so... One of the problems are, if you create a drived TTF and do not change the name of it and someons application or documents depends on YOUR derived TTF, the person is not more able to install the ORIGINAL TTF. Also the request to rename the TTF and remove all links to the ORIGINAL author protect him/her for damages based on the derived TTF. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Skype license
Am 2007-08-14 14:15:15, schrieb Josselin Mouette: Le lundi 13 août 2007 à 23:38 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : And more importantly, since Skype is a proprietary, non-standard protocol designed to undermine the standard and free VoIP protocols, there is nothing to gain and much to lose by promoting its use by anything affiliated with the Debian project. Not forgetting the serious security implications of running Skype. And since Skype falls under the US patriot Act... I would never use it (same for SIP even if I have an account for some bizzar reasons there) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: LGPL v3 compatibilty
# ATTENTION: I am currently NOT in Strasbourg because# # haveing the last 4 weeks of my military # # service and can not reply in short delays. # Hello *, Am 2007-07-01 16:38:56, schrieb Francesco Poli: On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:58:08 +0200 Andreas Metzler wrote: [...] LGPLv3 libraries could not be used in GPLv2-only programs. I'm afraid that this incompatibility is still true. AFAIUI, when you redistribute a GPLv2-only program in compiled form, the GPLv2 insists that the libraries the program links with (excluding system libraries...) are available under GPLv2. But an LGPLv3-only or LGPLv3-or-later library is available under GPLv3, not under GPLv2. All this, assuming that the FSF's legal theory of linking is correct: this theory has never been tested in court, AFAIK, hence we do not know if it would hold. However, we have to assume that it's correct, to be on the safe side. Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD. Question: I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently under LGPL v2. Now the new version of this LIB is v3. What should I do? Push the source of the LIB v2 into my executable since I can not distribute the same LIB (physical) because namespace conflicts ? It seems that I am using 7 libs which will switch to LGPL v3 and I am already using parts of libc-client (I do not want to use the pop3 part in any case and have some restrictions made to the source). Should I pull out all needed functions and put it into my own source? Two of those 7 LIB's are a WebDAV and a Calendar client library. This stuff is realy confusing... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
^^
Can this start a flame now? (I mean cdrtools = Jürg Schilling?)
Then the fork cdrkit was a shoot in the oven!
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Am 2007-05-24 19:44:38, schrieb Mike Hommey:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
^^
Can this start a flame now? (I mean cdrtools = Jürg Schilling?)
Then the fork cdrkit was a shoot in the oven!
The problem with cdrtools was not CDDL but the mix of CDDL and GPL,
which are incompatibles.
OK.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Am 2007-04-28 01:02:01, schrieb Francesco Poli: That is to say, IIUC, among project members only compressed videos are distributed. Yes, since how do you want to transfer several 100 Mbytes or some GBytes? per day and $MEMBER? To work on it the Uncompressed Videos are not neccesary for testing the Game and such. We include it at the end of a partial production. And the source (uncompressed and uncut) videos are kept on a single machine by a single person (with backups I hope). :-) We have several Backups, Older HP-DAT with 24/48 GByte, DVD9 and now since some weeks 1 TByte HDD's. And no one else has a copy of the source videos?!? No redundancy, at all?!? We keep the Videos arround between members but since the whole (source) game is stored on this machine, it is better for working. Should I contact the FSF about this special problem? I don't think the FSF feels strongly about the freeness of anything that is not a program. Quite the opposite, unfortunately (grinnn). :-/ ...but the Videos are parts of the program/game. Note: I have seen, there will be an equivalent commercial game out there and now it is realy weird situation, since the commercial one is realy eauivalent and if we make our GNU/Game public, they could tell us we have stolen there Idea... But this can not be, since the game is mostly my ancien live @LEF. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Sorry if you get this Message twice, but my Previously messages does not appear in the archives and it seems to be lost... Am 2007-04-11 00:24:19, schrieb Francesco Poli: So, IIUC, ready-to-use videos are created by extracting and compressing appropriate sequences of the original uncompressed videos. The original uncompressed form is kept in case some modifications are needed. This really seems to mean that the original uncompressed form is actually the source form. This is right. The extraction/compression process is automated via Makefiles: this is good and really helpful. Since some Video seauences are overlaping, distributing each singel Video alone wold increase the size... So, you seem to have a problem with big sources. The problem lies in the technical difficulties that arise when you want to distribute the complete source of the game (that includes the big uncompressed videos). Right, However, I suppose the problem is not only in *public* distribution. How do you handle the problem when you want to perform distribution of video source *inside* the project? The (my) server is in Offenburg/Germany and it has 7.2 TByte availlable. (30 x SCSI 300 GByte) and sitting only on a E1 (1.92 MBit). I mean: I hope those source videos are kept by *more* than one single project member! Otherwise your game project has a really low bus number (equal to 1, as far as videos are concerned!). How do you copy a big uncompressed video to other project members? The whole bunch of videos exist in 1/4 size and with 90% compression. So if someone need a new Video-Sequence they take the compressed one as template and then the real one will be generated... This works directly like a buildd (you send the config directly to the buildd) which put the resulting video (produced from) the original as high compressed one in the $HOME of the user. He/She can review it and then send a command to make the Real-Video. This is unfortunate, as it poses downstream recipients in a position of disadvantage with respect to upstream maintainers. Should I contact the FSF about this special problem? Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license
Hello Steve and *, Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek: Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not* permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is suboptimal, but it's still not something that we *permit*. (Perhaps what you're suggesting is that t-shirt manufacturers don't have to get permission because we have a mark in the field of computers/software, not in the field of clothing; but if what's being sold is Debian-related clothing, it's still the Debian mark that's being used, and it is infringement that we have standing to prevent.) Now I am a little bit confused, since if Debian does not permit the use of the Logo, why does some/many shops sell Coffe-Mugs and T-Shirts with Debian Logo and phrases related to Debian? Further, it's up to *Debian* to decide what uses of the logo reflect badly on it and consequently should be disallowed because we don't wish to be associated with them. Your above statement includes an implicit value judgement about which sorts of activities Debian will or will not wish to be associated with, which may not be at all representative of the views of the project members at large. Unfortunatly you can use Logos anzthing you like in Germany... The is a Product called Dasch Ultra and it was transformed to Hash Ultra :-) , Henkel, the Manufacturer of this Soap has lost the juridical procedure... Even if the Graphical Logo was trademaked Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#420686: It's not obvious esniper is legal (violation of eBay ToS)
Hello *, Am 2007-04-24 08:38:34, schrieb Bas Zoetekouw: How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law and Debian is not bound to it. You can get the specification of the eBay-API from the Website for free and can create FREELY a lib which allo you to access the eBay Database easily. The distribution of this lib would be also legal. ONLY, if you use of this lib for sniping and spidering it is illegal since it is considered as ABUSE of this service. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Am 2007-04-04 22:30:45, schrieb Francesco Poli: On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:01:02 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote: [...] And currently I create some new weapons but the source of sunburn for example is around 70 MBytes including the sound effects plus a real Video of 480 MByte as source which will be converted to a OGM to around 30 MByte. I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean: are you referring to the game project you're currently contributing to? What's that 30 Mbyte quantity? Could you explain a little more clearly? The sources of the Videos are all around 300-600 MByte and the end products binary are only environement 30 MByte ogm files. We keep the original Videos in case, we need new scenes or such which can create/extracted from the original video sources. The OGM's are create while building the End-Procuct from the make files. Extracting and resizing only sniplets from original, which mean, each Source-Video is several times used. Since I have asked, I have gotten a handfull E-Mails from peoples/enterprises having the same problem... IN CLEAR: For us, hobby or professional (high auality) game programmer the sources are in high quality for reusage since resizing does not match our needs and compressing brings to high losses. It seems, nobody was realy thinking about distributing the sources of Action/Stratigiggames which includes Video-Sequences under GPL. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Am 2007-03-28 01:18:32, schrieb Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu): Lossless and lossy compression format don't mean anything on preferred form for modification. Some recorders do record mp3/ogg directly. And some audio editors do edit mp3/ogg directly. And many of the authors of the audio works don't know the difference between mp3 and wav and flac. By ears, there's no difference between mp3 and wav, thus they may create I do not know, what ears you have but IF I edit a mp3 of 128kBit directly with the same methods I edit a shn file, I can hear the difference. (I know many peoples from LAD/LAU which can hear it) I think, all peoples with feeling for classic can it. My prefered ones are wav but distributing aound 2 hours of sound sources will fill 1 1/2 CD's, maybe one since wav can be good compressed. So, for creative works, the source is hard to be defined by format. Not like programs, we can easily know what is machine code and what is high level language code in most situations. We can only ask the author of the creative works to release their work honestly because in most situation we can't distinguish the source and binary if the author is lying. If the last format he has is wav, then he should release wav. If the last format he has is mp3, then mp3. The same thing also happens on images, like xcf/psd or png/jpg/gif or whatever. But the author should release the true source he really has. To require the author to use some listed formats for image source or audio source is impracticable. And if we define ogg/mp3 is not source, the games which have ogg/mp3 as data but cannot provide wav (may be deleted by the author by nature) will be non-free due to DFSG#2. OK, but will be Debian be willing, to distribute a 100% GPL 2.0 Game of (I think)currently 78 binaries of 500 MByte in summary plus over 3 GByte of sources? Which mean, this game need a CD for its own and a DVD to distribute the Source... And currently I create some new weapons but the source of sunburn for example is around 70 MBytes including the sound effects plus a real Video of 480 MByte as source which will be converted to a OGM to around 30 MByte. I have already managed that the DEMO videos of the Weapons are in seperated Debian-Packages... so no one must download 800 MByte extras. Note: It is a action/strategic game like Fleet Command with real existing weapons and conflicts... I do not know, when it will be ready, since we have performance problems and to many bugs and crashes. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Am 2007-03-28 01:00:13, schrieb Francesco Poli: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:18:32 +0800 Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote: To require the author to use some listed formats for image source or audio source is impracticable. Indeed! Because what is source for a work, can be a compiled form for another one, and so forth... But since we want to create a fully GPL 2.0 compliant game which can be 100% distributed, we (the creators; I am military adviser for weapons in this project) should care about the distribution of the source code which mean, DEBIAN is our mesurement! IF Debian tell us, a source of at least 3 GByte (increasing) is not distributable because resource limits, then we should change something in our work... Otherwise, IF Debian say: OK, we can distribute it, but we put the BINARIES on 1-2 seperated CD's and the SOURCE on a seperated DVD.; then it would be OK to leave it as it is! Please advise me. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian License agreement
Am 2007-03-24 23:08:31, schrieb Vsevolod Krishchenko: On Saturday 24 March 2007 22:53, you wrote: find /usr/share/doc -name copyright|xargs tar czf I_Love_Russia.tar.gz That gives the Russian authorities something to read. :) Sad point is it must be translated (at least unofficial translation) into Russian! :( No problem... Create a script which put each file in a HTML-Code and souround it with PRE/PRE then put it online and let GOOGLE spider it. Now use the Google translator and fetch the russian translated pages with wget and put it into your I_Love_Russia.tar.gz. :-) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Am 2007-03-11 12:14:09, schrieb Francesco Poli: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: Even the GPL terms could be used, so long as it's clear what the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it means for that work. Agreed, with the addition that, IMHO, the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it is always well-defined (even though sometimes it may be non-trivial to determine). Hence, I would recommend the GNU GPL (v2) whenever one wants a copyleft. I personaly consider mp3/mp4 and ogg (vorbis, theora, ...) NOT as the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. I asume, that there are nore then one person on the list aggree with me. So whats the prefered form of source. For mp3 and ogg-vorbis it can be wav, flac or shn but what about videos? I have a Video splited in singel bitmaps, which mena 25 images per second and I do not know, whether this can be the desired form of distribution since a short video of ONE second (512x384/24) would be 14 MByte as bitmaps which is by a little bit larger videos undesirable since it exceed any logical distribution limits. Please note, that I am talking about some embedded Videos in games and equivalent stuff... since I know, that there is a game (GPL v2) which can fill without any problems an entired DVD (4.2 GByte) with it sourcecode if distributed as bitmaps... otherwise 1-2 CD's. The Game without the Videos is definitivly useless. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] mailing list subjects
Am 2007-02-09 10:32:43, schrieb Daniele Micci:
Hi, just a suggestion.
Why don't you (the ML admins) tag each email in the ML inserting in
its subject some prefix (something like: [Debian-legal] subject of
email)? This could help those of us who often read emails using a web
interface.
It is not done since most Debianers reading Messages in text MUA's
on the console where we have in general only 80 characters and
inserting Subject tags like [debian-user-german] would eat more
then 25% of the visible space and noone can read the subject.
Instead you should use the right filtering tool like procmail and
use one folder for each Mailinglist like:
8--
:0
* ^X-BeenThere:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
{
INCLUDERC=${HOME}/.procmail/FLT_subject
:0
*
^X-BeenThere:.*(mailman|request|subscribe|unsubscribe|owner)@lists\.alioth\.debian\.org
.ML_debian.ADMIN/
:0
* ^X-BeenThere:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* ^X-BeenThere:.*\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+
.ML_debian.${MATCH}/
}
:0
* ^From:.*(request|listmaster)@lists|([EMAIL PROTECTED])\.debian\.org
.ML_debian.ADMIN/
:0
* ^X-Mailing-List:.*debian-\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+
.ML_debian.${MATCH}/
8--
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature
Re: Public discussion time for Creative Commons 3.0 license draft coming to a close
Hello Evan, I will subscribe to the list and support it. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant Am 2006-10-02 16:49:14, schrieb Evan Prodromou: So, for those of you who want to see Creative Commons licenses that meet our standard of Freedom, this is the time to act. Please, if you haven't already, take a few minutes to send an email message to the Creative Commons public review mailing list [6] letting CC know that you support a Debian-compatible version of the license. I want a Debian-compatible Creative Commons license, signed John Q. Hacker is probably plenty. [6] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/ - END OF REPLIED MESSAGE - -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Am 2006-09-29 11:47:36, schrieb Henri Sivonen: If you get the source of e.g. Firefox or Gimp and modify the source and recompile for Windows, Windows will still run your own versions without you having to ask Microsoft to sign your binaries. Which M$ can change at any time! (The code is in XP, 2003 and Vista) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[swhoisd] Want to make sure...
Hello, Currently I am packing the swhoisd (Simpel Whois Daemon) for Debian but I want to make sure, there are no problems... COPYING: 8 Copyright © 2000 Joao Cabral [EMAIL PROTECTED] All rights reserved. Copyright © 2001 Dan Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] All rights reserved. $Id: COPYING 1.3 2001/07/02 19:05:15 dan Exp $ LICENSE Swhoisd is covered by the following copyright/license. This license is copied verbatium from the BSD-style license as modified by XFree86 to be GNU license compatible (i.e., it does not have the advertising clause--see http://www.xfree86.org/ and http://www.gnu.org/). It is also consistent with the Open Source definition (see http://www.opensource.org/): Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the authors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; 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. 8 Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Want to make sure...
Am 2006-09-07 19:17:58, schrieb Andrew Donnellan: On 9/6/06, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The name of the authors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. Is that a copying error or just a really stupid license? I would insert the word 'not' inbetween 'may' and 'be'. I have inserted the original Text. But now I have a new Problem: For some minutes I have gotten back my E-Mail send to Dan Anderson. It sems there is only the domain drydog.com but no dan anymore. I will look into the source code and try to take over, since it does not more seem to be supported but I know MANY ISP/Registrars using it. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence? (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich) It hasn't. Which mean HE or Canotix can be sued? I do find such things not realy funny... Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Am 2006-08-18 21:12:59, schrieb Ben Finney: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual licence Really? For any patent, from whomever holds it, in any jurisdiction, Yes, I was contacting several of them and all individual licences are arround 500-1 US$. 5000US$ for the legal use of libdvdss2. Now imagine you have 100 DVDs bought to 3US$ each... ...then you will have payed effectivly 80US$/DVD. for use in any software, for any purpose? The Debian project is concerned with all users having all the freedoms in the DFSG for all software in Debian. Since I live in Europe and I can not use libdvdcss2 to VIEW videos legal, I have ask the European Court of Jusice for arround 5 Month. Since my DVDs are quiet expensive (50-100 Euro/DVD) a licence of 5000US$ is inacceptable, if you know, that you can Windows software for 20 Euro including the CCS licence. There is probably something wrong! OK, another Example: I am on the mplayer-user list and for some years I was talking about licencing and they told me, that the CSS owner do not want to sell a licence to the OSS community. Not even for 200.000 US$. Should I guess why? There are many enterprises (specialy one) which want to drop the OSS stuff... maybe with a donation to the right person? The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence? (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich) Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Am 2006-08-16 11:04:44, schrieb Bas Wijnen: Hello, When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4 codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed in order to use it, appearantly. You can obtaine an individual licence for 5000 US$ from the patent holder. same thing for libcss2. My question is how Debian handles software patents. I thought we Debian does not handel any software patents, since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual licence didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets patented. If that is the case, would any of you know if the MPEG[24] codec patents are actively enforced? In other words, can this be in Debian? Patents on decoding something can not be enforced. Patents on encoding YES! Please look at the websiote of the patent holder. All informations are availlable public. Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Re: Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Am 2006-08-17 22:44:25, schrieb Weakish Jiang: Bas Wijnen wrote: I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets patented. Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. Not realy right = JPEG And they are some dozen others which are not actively enforced. If Debian kick off all packages which use patented stuff anywhere then we would have only 50% of the packages in Sid... Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
Hello Ben and *, sorry for the late reponse, but I was in Palestine and have gotten trouble with the Israelian Authority... (They give bullschit on Diplomatic immunity!) Am 2006-06-12 17:37:16, schrieb Ben Finney: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. That's great, it makes the free software community stronger and makes your work useful to more people. Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? The DFSG doesn't specify license terms. It's a set of guidelines for judging the freedoms granted to recipients of a work. This judgement concerns not just the license from copyright, or patent, or trademark, or any other particular monopolies. Rather, it addresses the combined set of effective freedoms granted to the recipient of the work. Thus, it wouldn't make much sense to treat the DFSG as a license. I was thinking to use the term: Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). I am thinking, that this makes my standpoint more clear as telling users: This software is under GPL vXX. I fully aggree with the Debian philosophy and this is why I stay with it (even if it steals me sometimes th last nerv ;-) ) What do you think about it? Greetings Michelle Konzack -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFSG as Licence?
Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. Thanks and Nice Weekend Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problematic distribution of P2P clients in France
Hello all, sorry for the late answer, but I have gotten for some minutes an answer back from my advocat in Strasbourg. Am 2006-03-18 13:06:26, schrieb Simon Vallet: « Sanctions up to 300 000 € and three year imprisonment shall be required in the following cases : 1° To willingly edit, distribute to the public, or inform the public about, in any form, a device[2] whose obvious purpose is to permit unauthorized distribution of protected works Using P2P software is NOT illegal. 2° To willingly, also through advertising, incite to use of software[3] mentioned in 1° It is illegal to animate people to download copyrighted work. Now, since Debian distributes many P2P clients in main, I fear this could become problematic -- are those to be considered as a device as mentioned in 1°, or as software used for exchange of unprotected files as defined in the second paragraph ? There are many sites where you can download leagl stuff using P2P software. So it is not possible in France, to interdir the use P2P software. Greetings Michelle Konzack -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problematic distribution of P2P clients in France
Hello all, sorry for the late answer, but I have gotten for some minutes an answer back from my advocat in Strasbourg. Am 2006-03-18 13:06:26, schrieb Simon Vallet: « Sanctions up to 300 000 € and three year imprisonment shall be required in the following cases : 1° To willingly edit, distribute to the public, or inform the public about, in any form, a device[2] whose obvious purpose is to permit unauthorized distribution of protected works Using P2P software is NOT illegal. 2° To willingly, also through advertising, incite to use of software[3] mentioned in 1° It is illegal to animate people to download copyrighted work. Now, since Debian distributes many P2P clients in main, I fear this could become problematic -- are those to be considered as a device as mentioned in 1°, or as software used for exchange of unprotected files as defined in the second paragraph ? There are many sites where you can download leagl stuff using P2P software. So it is not possible in France, to interdir the use P2P software. Greetings Michelle Konzack -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Translation of a license
Am 2006-01-15 22:13:52, schrieb Tobias Toedter: On Sunday 15 January 2006 21:12, Andrew Donnellan wrote: I think you can, except the FSF requires that you place a notice, in English, saying 'This is an unofficial translation and the original English version is the only legal one', which obviously doesn't look very good on the program's copyright notice. So in summary it would probably be better to leave the license untranslated, right? This can be a problem in France, because products (software included) must have manuals and something like this (licences inclusive) written in french. This is a frech law. I was personaly running into trouble for some years offering a commercial product, where Manual and Licence are written only in english and german, because I am not native french speaker... Cheers, Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov: BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5 plus postage cost. Too expensive. :-P regards, alexander. Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: data on the consultants page
Hello Andrew, Am 2005-11-07 06:16:45, schrieb Andrew Donnellan: Is this spam email spam? I would think that you couldn't really copyright an email address. And who exactly is this spam from? If they are requesting something they should be traceable. Also, are other consultants getting the same? Is it really spam, or just heaps of inappropriate requests? I have gotten the same Message, but it was going directly to the SPAM folder and I have found it after I have received this thread and was searching for it. Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], bizzar name you have... Am 2005-11-08 14:36:26, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not following them by the word may be mere toleration by the copyright holder or because the distributor makes sure source distribution occurs when it is requested. Who need the whole Sourcecode for a Distribution ? Imagine, there is a Distributor which limited Diskspace on the Web/ FTP-Server and the bandwidth is sponsored... Imagine 10.000 peoples want to compile one little tool of some kByte (like me with ssmtp) with another options... Insteed of downloading some kByte, the need to fetch a 650 MByte Image where 649,95 MByte are useless... Asking for downloadable source images ia associal if the source mirror is publich availlable or source CD can be ordered fro distributor. But why? Why should the offer for copying the source be made in the same terms as the copying of the binaries? Because a distributor may make it difficult for someone to get the sources. It may put the No, it is difficult to MOST users to get sources, if they ARE on CD. MOST user need only singel source packages, but whole binary CD's for installation. sources on a machine with low bandwidth, which would take a thousand times the time to download the binary. Or else it may put the source Yeah, put the source into a seperate directory and use mod_throttle :-P behind a proprietary protocol, which would require the installation of some software under some unreasonable license (imagine one which only allows its use if you do not develop software for the same purposes). This is stupid! stupid things erased That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in the *same* place. IF you can FTP binary CD's it is enough, if you can get singel source packages from the same site (distributor not physicaly one) Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the 100% disagreement! Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
Am 2005-11-08 17:48:03, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree that offering access as tar.gz should be considered reasonable. And I would say it is pretty more acceptable than offering access through a SCM web browser. I would like to interpret GPL as in spirit and that would mean easy access to the sources, in my opinion. I just wouldn't agree that a mirror of Debian would not distribute sources of software that requires that, without making an offer to distribute the sources for at least three years. This is not right, because I know a couple of mirrors which have only binary-i386 and disks-i386 because limited disk space. because it IS a partial mirror and the Debian binaries are equivalent worldwide, it can easy downloaded from other official Debian-Mirrors. Pointing to Debian main repository should not be enough. Imagine I think, this is not right. Debian servers get down for any reason in the only day one could get Hmmm, several 1000' Servers going down the same time and ONLY your server with binarys stay On-Line? the binaries and sources. Please consider consulting your PSY. Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which Debian section?
Hello Oded, Am 2004-10-24 13:40:55, schrieb Oded Shimon: Not sure if this is the best place to ask this: I built a program, and am now working on a creating a Debian package for it. the program is an MEncoder frontend, and it depends on MPlayer to work (without it, it would crash on startup). ??? MPlayer is not in the debian archives, from what I understand because of patents. I put MPlayer as a 'Suggests' in my program. This is Wrong, because if your frondend crashs if MPLayer is not installed, you must change it from Suggests to Depends or maybe Pre-Depends. My question is, where does my program belong? contrib, or main? If your frontend meeds the conditons of GPL and DFSG, the you can put it into contrib. - ods15 Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: GPL plus securities industry disclaimer suitable for main?
Am 2003-10-03 11:25:00, schrieb Florian Weimer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract, Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before 1995 is not redistributable over the Internet. Hallo Thomas, Can you give me spme online Resources about it ? Links, Online-Gesetze or something like this ? I have trouble with the OpenSCO sourcecode, because I have programmed in 1988-1991 and uploaded some progs ans sourcecodes to a BBS in München. The Binary and Sourcecode (for DOS) was in the Public Domain and for educational only, not for commercial use. I have found the same sourcecode (around 90%) in Calera Linux and now in the Debian Sourcecode... I am intersting in all related topics. (For now, I have nothing against the use of my sourcecode in Linux, but against the USe in SCO and OpenSCO which was illegal) Danke Michelle -- Registered Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
