Re: OpenOffice.org (LGPL) and hspell (GPL)
Hi, Josh Triplett wrote: I think the ideal solution would be to change hspell so that it can build outside of the OO.o source tree; as far as I know, it is OK to have some GPLed and some non-free plugins for the same LGPLed program, as long as they are not all distributed together. The hspell component uses the normal hspell lib (no problem here if we build from the hspell sourcepkg). But it also uses private headers and libraries from OpenOffice.org. The libraries are in openoffice.org-bin but the headers not in -dev. We could put all headers into -dev but I don't think this is a grandious idea wrt size and there probably is a reason why those headers don't appear in the SDK... Well, so it could only be built from hspell and not from us, so we can't fix that bug yet easily. Pity.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
OpenOffice.org (LGPL) and hspell (GPL)
[ -legal: please let the CCs intact and CC: me, I am not subscribed ] Hi, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=255451 contains a wish to include hspell support (upstream issue http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25832) into our OpenOffice.org packages and I want to do this starting with the upcoming 1.1.3 packages. The problem is that OpenOffice.org is LGPL/SISSL and hspell pure GPL so it could not be included in OpenOffice.orgs source and linking (in this case statically) against it is also not really ok... Well, how to build it then? Two possibilities: 1) we try to build this package from the hspell package. While this is probably the best solution this is the hardest ione since even when we get a openoffice.org-dev in 1.1.3, this stuff uses many private headers and libraries and so could not be easily built from hspell. Moreover, the buildsystem of this addon has to be fully reworked since it currently bases on 2) 2) build OOo, patch hspell in and built it against the built OpenOffice.org. This is the method the author of the add-on chooses and we could do this with some debian/rules magic too. However, this would mean a binary package of OOo would link with a GPLed lib (hspell). Is this allowed? Can I do that? Do I need to create an openoffice.org-hspell package or can I integrate this into the main ones? I hope I am clear.. Opinions? Suggestions? Can I do this or do I have to tag this bug wontfix since we cannot do it legally either way since this would be linking of a LGPLed app with a GPLed lib? Regards, René
Re: OpenOffice.org (LGPL) and hspell (GPL)
Hi, Am Dienstag, 21. September 2004 12:28 schrieb Steve Langasek: Why not? If all of OOo is LGPL, then the license allows you to distribute under the terms of the GPL, so linking with another GPL library is ok. Hmm... What are the advantages of hspell (which I've never heard of) over other spellchecking implementations already used by OOo, btw? OOo uses MySpell which does not really work for hebrew so hspell (which is exactly for hebrew) is to be used... Regards, René
use of official logo in app splash screens
[ If you do not reply to d-openoffice, too, lease CC me. However, Reply-To: is set to all three lists ] Hi, On releases@openoffice.org recently was announced [1] that there is now the Sun logo embedded into the OOo splash screen and that vendors are encouraged to add their logos to the screen instead of the Sun things So, we want to add the Debian Logo there. http://people.debian.org/~rene/openoffice.org/splash-gimp.png is the Sun screen and an empty one. Now, we wonder if we are allowed to use the official logo (because it is a Debian-product, the Debian-Pakete of OpenOffice.org) or if we should use the open one? Grüße/Regards, René [1] http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=83listName=releases -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
Hi, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: Hello, I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package may/may not be possibly infriging on. As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities, so what should one do with this? That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source. Are all package maintainers required to do this? We have to (of course we do our best). Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we respect? We do not ignore any patent. Ah, OK. So we can stop Debian because we would have to remove all software because the progess bar is patented by IBM (at least here in Europe, don't know about US) or the concept of if is patented or the concept on working on another machine (ssh), tabbed UIs (Adobe) etc.? Rene pgpZD0CZDQHiY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is LPPL + some additions DSFG free?
Hi, [ Quoting full text because that should go to -legal; cc'ing -legal ] Martin Pitt wrote: Hi! I am currently packaging latex-ucs (see #160953), being mentored and sponsored by Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The package is I wasn't sure about the LPPL issues; I remember some discussions in the last moths and searched, but I haven't found a conclusion in the archives... currently licensed under the LaTeX Project Public License (see http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt) with the following additions by upsteam: This program may be distributed and/or modified under the conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.1 of this license or (at your option) any later version, with the following extensions: - distribution may omit the files data/uninames.dat and ucs-doc.dvi - The directory structure may be changed - The data/uni-*.def files may be regenerated via makeunidef.pl from a valid set of config/*.def files without changing the former's names, whereby a valid set of config/*.ucf files consists of the original files and any local additions in separate files, whereby any characters defined in these should only be accessible via an option which starts with the five letters 'local'. (See the documentation files for a description of the technical terms and names in this paragraph). Since I want to split up the package in several (base, -dev, -doc, -contrib), I contacted upsteam who added the following permission: - A distribution may split the package into smaller packages, as long as this fact is visible to the user and the user may easily install the complete UCS package (e.g. by installing all small packages). Since the LPPL is quite restrictive, I'm not sure whether the LPPL + upstream's additions can be seen as DFSG-free. The most recent of the (few) statements about the LPPL can be found at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199911/msg00145.html However, the thread was not very exhausting, so I'm asking again. It would be nice if answers are cc'ed to me since I'm not subscribed to d-legal. Thanks in advance! Martin Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgptAqdNhlFZN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: should I upload ljpg - lossless jpeg?
Hi, Cc'ing debian-legal... tomas pospisek wrote: 3) The copyright seems to be fine - any comments? I don't think that... Copyright (c) 1993 Cornell University, Kongji Huang All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its ^ documentation for research purposes, without fee, and without written What's with non-research purposes? If I read the license right, this is not allowed and that is against DFSG (6. No driscrimination against fields of endavour)... Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpewpsaHnvve.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#172181: lzw code missing (no patent?)
severity 172181 wishlist thanks Hi Drew, [ Cc:'ing debian-legal... ] Drew Scott Daniels wrote: There may not be reason to exclude the lzw and related code as the LZW patent is running out. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00160.html Yes. It seems to be running out this month in the US. But is remains valid in .de till 2004 (or 2003 if Unisys did not pay the last fee) I am unsure as to how this bug should properly be addressed, but I do feel that if lzw is disabled, it is a bug. I feel that this bug satisfies the requirements of normal as it affects the normal use of openoffice.org in relation to .gif files. It isn't. We do not want to get into legal problems (at least in .de then). There currently is the threat to legalize software patents even in the EU (LZW was patented in EU anyway although this isn't law here yet) I hope someone will now respond to my message on debian-legal. My lzw message was even mentioned in the DWN. Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpFPnVaUCXBP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BSD GPL / deb with 2 licenses?
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The BSD Daemon is under the license at http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.html The big problem there is that the grant is only to individuals for personal use. I'd assume that any other use has to be negotiated with McKusick himself. DFSG free? I can't feature any scenario in which it would be: the main license discriminates against groups, and any other licensing would be Debian-specific. Hmmm. This is more I have told from upstream... We should remove it; it's not DFSG. I won't add it. (That was the question here in place) Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpmbuHi9aHrg.pgp Description: PGP signature
BSD GPL / deb with 2 licenses?
Hi, I am the maintainer of the muttprint package. I heard from upstream that the FreeBSD port folks do have the BSD Daemon as logo for muttprint and ship in in their port. I want it to include in muttprint package for those using them on the *BSD ports if they want to... Upstream told me that he is not allowed to distribute it in this original tarball because BSD vs. GPL. Is that right (muttprint is under GPL). So, I want to know if upstream's thoughts are right and it is forbidden to add the Daemon? And what's with the deb? Am I allowed to put the eps [1] or the patch creating it[2] in if I have in the copyright file something like: For all files except Beastie.eps: GPL Beastie.eps: BSD You can find the And if that's not good, would it be good to fetch the patch creating Beastie directly from the net during postinst and remove the image during preinst? Any advice would be appreciated. Regards, Rene [1] This eps was sent to me by the FreeBSD port maintainer, I put it for now on http://people.debian.org/~rene/debian/muttprint/addons/images/Beastie.eps [2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/muttprint/files/patch-ae -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpFVkgwuQn8e.pgp Description: PGP signature
