Re: Is Project Gutenberg License DFSG compatible

[Sven Joachim]

On 2017-08-04 00:27 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:

> I find there's not enough mention about The Project Gutenberg
> License[1].

It seems that license fails the DFSG, because § 1.E.8. imposes
restrictions on charging a fee for distribution which contradicts DFSG
§ 1.

> I meet a package that includes a file[2] licensed under it.
> The content of this file is a public domain work, but it's produced by
> project Gutenberg[3]. Should I exclude this file?

Either that, or remove all references to Project Gutenberg from it as
mentioned in § 1.C. of their license.  Sending a patch to upstream which
does the latter would be useful, but until they incorporate it you will
have to repack the upstream tarball.

> [1] http://gutenberg.net/license
> [2] 
> https://github.com/biogo/hts/blob/master/bgzf/testdata/Mark.Twain-Tom.Sawyer.txt
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gutenberg

Cheers,
   Sven

Re: Iceweasel trademark

[Sven Joachim]

On 2009-07-07 06:05 +0200, Daniel Richard G. wrote:


 Who is the appropriate contact for requesting permission to use the 
 Iceweasel trademark, in a context other than direct reference to the 
 rebranded Firefox software? I don't see any text in the latest iceweasel 
 package's copyright file governing usage.

TTBOMK, there is no Iceweasel trademark.  Regarding copyright, the
logos are under the usual GPL/LGPL/MPL trilicense, according to
debian/copyright.

 (The intent here is potential commercial use of the mark, e.g. Iceweasel 
 plushies.)

Merchandising should be fine, AFAICS you don't have to ask anyone for
permission.

Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: License compatibility with GPLv3

[Sven Joachim]

Hi Miriam,

On 2008-01-24 13:49 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:

 I have some small problem with Gnash that might be extensible to other
 packages, so I'm asking here to find out if anyone else has had that
 problem too and how did they manage it.

 Gnash is GNU's free Flash player. It is now licensed under GPLv3 (it
 was previously GPLv2 or above). It has a really huge list of build
 dependencies:

 dpkg-dev (= 1.13.19), debhelper (= 4.0.0), quilt, autoconf, dh-buildinfo,
 automake1.9 | automake, libtool, libltdl3-dev, help2man, libxmu-dev, dejagnu,
 autotools-dev, libboost-dev, libboost-thread-dev, libxml2-dev, libjpeg-dev,
 libpng12-dev | libpng-dev, libagg-dev, libgstreamer0.10-dev, libkonq4-dev,
 libpango1.0-dev | pango-devel, libgtkglext1-dev, libmad0-dev, libdirectfb-dev,
 libcurl4-gnutls-dev | libcurl3-gnutls-dev | libcurl4-openssl-dev |
 libcurl3-openssl-dev,
 libcaca-dev, libboost-date-time-dev, libavcodec-dev, libavformat-dev,
 libming-dev,
 libming-util, mtasc, libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-dev,
 libboost-serialization-dev, python, base-files (= 4.0.1)

 All these dependencies already have their own list of dependencies
 too, right now I'm concerned about libkonq4-dev and Qt being GPLv2
 only. Even though all of these packages might be GPLv3 compatible, it
 is not guaranteed that their dependencies are, like:

 Package A (GPLv3) depends on package B (GPLv2 or above)
 Package B (GPLv2 or above) depends on package C (GPLv2 only)

 Both dependencies would be OK on their own, but I'd be effectively
 linking A (GPLv3) with C (GPLv2 only) which are not compatible.

You will be interested that Trolltech has released Qt 3.3.8 under GPL 3:

http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2008-01-18.5377846280/pressrelease_view

Cheers,
   Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]