On Friday 14 September 2007 10:38:40 Steve King wrote:
> This is David Coffin's proposed license text for the next version of
> dcraw: No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However, to
> lawfully redistribute dcraw, you must either (a) offer, at no extra
> charge, full source code* f
This is David Coffin's proposed license text for the next version of dcraw:
No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However,
to lawfully redistribute dcraw, you must either (a) offer, at
no extra charge, full source code* for all executable files
containing RESTRICTED func
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Extract for my searches on problem with package including dcraw.
Silently others programs have by-passed this problem as digikam /
ufraw / rawstudio.
Can authors/maintainers tell us which version of dcraw is oncluded ?
Or confirm that :
ufraw 0.11 us
On Jul 05, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>*If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
>homepage qualifies as "full source code".
>
>$Revision: 1.387 $
>$Date: 2007/06/24 00:18:52 $
> */
>
>
> You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modif
On Jul 06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's what the letter of the license says. Because of that, the
> licensor could, at his or her option, choose to interpret the license
> this way.
Licensors can do this anyway even for licenses which we consider well
understood and with no ambi
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 03:45:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
> > > You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified
> > > versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG.
> > I don't agree with you here. It seems to me that we do have
> > permis
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 03:45:29 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
> > > You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified
> > > versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG.
> >
> > I don't agree with you here. It seems to me that we do have
> > permissi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
> > You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified
> > versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG.
>
> I don't agree with you here. It seems to me that we do have
> permission to distribute modified versions, provided source is
> included.
> Package: dcraw
> Version: 7.02-1
> Severity: serious
>
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
>> However I would appreciate it if the assembled masses of legal
>> experts could confirm that they agree that this is the case.
>
> There's actually an even more fundamental problem with dcraw.c:
>
>
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
> The license against which you have raised a bug is not the one that covers
> the version that is currently part of debian. The appropriate license is
> here:
Right, but the issues present in the current version of the license
are also present in the versi
Hi Don,
The license against which you have raised a bug is not the one that
covers the version that is currently part of debian. The appropriate
license is here:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dcraw/dcraw_8.39-1/dcraw.copyright
You should also probably consider the text on
Package: dcraw
Version: 7.02-1
Severity: serious
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
> However I would appreciate it if the assembled masses of legal
> experts could confirm that they agree that this is the case.
There's actually an even more fundamental problem with dcraw.c:
/*
dcraw.c --
12 matches
Mail list logo
