Missed the bug off the CC for this. Sorry.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:34:13 +
From: MJ Ray
To: debian-le...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear
Domenico Andreoli skribis:
> the situation of dwarves-d
for users to dismiss or
attackers to spoof.
Could that one be moved to /etc/dtc, please?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk
for material on the website if
asked, so long as the previous licence(s) also held.
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk
clone 521448 -1
retitle -1 p3nfs: applet build requires packages which are not in debian
stop
Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop napsal(a):
This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close
message, while gammu's source does contain source code
+0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...]
Reopen and retitle? [...]
Could you please do that? [...]
Done.
Thanks for your time and hope this isn't too awkward to fix.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http
Erik Schanze schan...@gmx.de wrote:
What should I do?
Have I move afio to non-free?
Thank you for bringing this question to the list - I was going to do
so, but had not found time yet.
More seriously, the Lachman Associates licence doesn't give any
permission to modify the software, does it?
Paul Gevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Could you help by explaining what needs to be done
(if anything) with the current old-stable, stable and testing sources?
It looks like we should take this seriously, but I fear this is slightly
above my head. Especially the fact that upstream removed
Just rounding off a few loose edges. Stopping for reasons explained
near the end:-
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
MJ Ray wrote:
For example, a PHPBB service page is about 20k, while PHPBB source is
2.19MiB.
You have a mighty uninteresting forum if people only look
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I repeatedly stated my opinion on the PHP license and its unfixed
issues: I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01),
fails to meet the DFSG, even for PHP itself!
However I failed to gain consensus on debian-legal about the
.
As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for
some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with
you if I reopen this bug but downgrade it to wishlist?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-11-24 15:06:03.00 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for
some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with
you if I reopen this bug but downgrade
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I thank you for your personal view (which will be useful for software
where you are a licensor), but this is essentially the same anecdotal
advocacy which has been covered in previous discussions about AGPLv3.
Well, you should not have
Source: yocto-reader
Version: 0.9.3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
yocto-reader is under the AGPLv3 with no clarifications.
Clause 13 of the AGPLv3 requires any hosting user to provide access
to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge to
every visitor to the
Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OpenArena contains a copy of the lcc compiler in the code/tools/lcc
directory, which does not seem free software as it does not allow
commercial distribution.
I agree. The early parts make it look like a BSD-style licence, but
the license part
These two bugs are being discussed by DPL candidates after
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/03/msg00065.html
and the current DPL has been asked the current status by an SPI
board member, as reported in
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2008-March/002538.html
One candidate's
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to
reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing
debian-legal, as this has been discussed to death and I guess someone
will have more clues than myself.
I think I
Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can anyone comment on whether or not it is problematic for us to
distribute a tiny icon of Firefox's logo? [...]
IIRC we have no current copyright permission for it, even in the browser
sources. So, yes, a problem. Can you ask Mozilla.org whether the logo
is
Christian Aichinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:06:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Christian Aichinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since that violates policy, the removal of /usr/bin/git
As explained, I do not see why this violates policy, as the
git shell script offers
Christian Aichinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since that violates policy, the removal of /usr/bin/git
As explained, I do not see why this violates policy, as the
git shell script offers the git-core functionality.
What other way is there for a neat transition for stable users?
is documented in
Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted from policy:
Two different packages must not install programs with different
functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via
alternatives or [...]
I think
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked debian-legal:
Unfortunately John L Allen is unreachible to clarify the license terms of his
piece of code [3].
Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a copyright
for
the code to have it in Public Domain ? [...]
70 years
Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a) a proper license should be decided for the website.
I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
license.
I suggest using a BSD-style licence as default, but the attached one
is not one. Do
Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ].
That URL says that you can modify the GPL to create your own license,
then release your software under that license, just don't call it GPL
anymore. It doesn't say, you can take some work that
Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL
and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being
invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in
light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm
The request for more information was returned with the message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
host lookup did not complete: retry timeout exceeded
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
help,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the statistic is questionable, so there should be
verification/substantiation of the statistic, but I don't know
whether it's right or wrong. I think it's prejudging things to
delete the first paragraph as suggested.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work
this issue to SPI's
secretarys attention, but SPI board would appreciate some suggestion
what they should decide about license change.
I see it will be discussed at the board meeting at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2005-10-18.html
Best wishes,
--
MJ Ray (slef), Lynn, England, to email
like those may have similar bugs.
A common solution seems to be to get permission to link to
an APL'd work as an exception. Upstream looks alive. If
they're willing, it may be the simplest fix.
libapache2-mod-ldap-userdir has an exception for OpenSSL already.
Good luck!
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn
-on-already-installed-mz.
What's the status of this bug? I can't see surviving problems,
but I don't have an system to test this upgrade on (yet).
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Read more about the iPIX vs Dersch from FFII at
http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/ipix/
The second link (contains patent titles) suggests that there
is clear prior art.
Interactive Pictures appear to be a tn.us corporation - does anyone
nearby know whether any regulations forbid so-called patent
Marco wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
Where many in this context should be read as an handful of people on
the debian-legal mailing list who
32 matches
Mail list logo
