On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:01:03PM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image.
Mechanical
transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally
have
copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 08:12:28AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Right, that's more or less what I thought it would be. It is unlikely that
the transformation from a jpg to a puzzle image file includes any creative
contribution; if this is an algorithmic transformation, then I believe
*only*
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:11:50PM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
Dear all,
I've just read this thread. What do you think about this [1]
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00427.html
debian/copyright should list the names of the actual copyright holders of
the work.
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:47:25AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
debian/copyright should list the names of the actual copyright holders of
the work. debian-devel is not a great resource for helping you figure out
who those copyright holders are, but if the upstream author has already
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:42:20AM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:47:25AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
debian/copyright should list the names of the actual copyright holders of
the work. debian-devel is not a great resource for helping you figure out
who those
You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image.
Mechanical
transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally
have
copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would
probably
be the same as for cat.jpg.
yes, would probably... but
Dear all,
I've just read this thread. What do you think about this [1]
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/07/msg00427.html
Add:
- Previous Debian release include copyright image owner.
- Image license requires link to web site source as a condition.
Regards,
--
Elías Alejandro
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:54:14 -0400
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
for files in the debian
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:23:01 -0400
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
I don't personally think it's interesting or relevant to record in
debian/copyright the license of generated files, and there is certainly
nothing in Policy that requires you to do this. Why do you ask?
My
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes:
My sponsor requested me to add debian/copyright entries for files in the
generated HTML documentation. The documentation is generated by Sphinx,
and Sphinx adds some templates and js libraries which are then covered
(at least that's what I believe) by
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:26:36AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Hi,
..and configure scripts have parts of autotools, Makefile.ins contain
code from automake, and even compiled binaries contain stuff that
originates from the compiler.
I don't think these should be documented in
Sven Hoexter s...@timegate.de writes:
The question is what should be achieved with d/copyright?
Give just a short overview over the main parts of the package or a complete
overview of the complete package contents?
My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source
Le Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:13:24AM +0200, Gergely Nagy a écrit :
My understanding is, that it should be a complete overview of the source
licenses. I do not treat generated files as source, because,
well... they're not.
They might come in the source tarball, like the autotools-generated
Hi,
I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
that are installed by the generated .deb.
Does that mean that files that are *generated* during execution of
debian/rules (e.g. rendered
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
that are installed by the generated .deb.
Does that mean that files that
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
that are installed by the generated .deb.
Does that mean that files that are *generated*
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
that are installed by the generated .deb.
Does
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:54:53 -0400
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
I understand that a DEP5 copyright file lists licenses and copyrights
for files in the debian source package directory, rather than for files
that are installed by the
Le Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:26:55PM -0500, Joey Hess a écrit :
Riku Voipio wrote:
I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list
of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material.
Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation
(such as
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:34:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with
advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors,
I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list
of attributions needed to
Riku Voipio wrote:
I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list
of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material.
Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation
(such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will
not
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
information. There was more than one BSD license in use well before
USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version.
[snip]
While this is very interesting (I
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Am I missing something?
This ?
http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
lists.]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
information. There was more than
Hi,
I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
following statements:
--
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
[Please follow up to -legal only. Full quote for the benefit of -legal.]
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
Hi,
I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
following statements:
--
1. Redistributions of source code must
On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed at the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories.
Hi Jean!
You wrote:
I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
following statements:
--
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
On 06/02/2008, Sebastian Harl wrote:
Just to make this clear […]
Yep, thank you (all) for clarifying that, sorry for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgpFkxYGMPJdq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon a écrit :
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such
licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory
read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this
reason, I wouldn't recommend to include
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:44:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such
licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory
read all the copyright files to check
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with
advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors,
who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should
remeber that for other aspects of licencing and
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered
by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of
least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable
licenses in the DFSG.
The 4-clause BSD license is
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable
license.
DFSG URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract §10:
10. Example Licenses
The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider free.
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Am I missing something?
This ?
http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
I would like to package a set of large mouse cursor fonts for X. These are
useful on a laptop, where the cursor's hard to see.
The fonts appear to be the standard X cursor fonts, scaled up by certian
factors (so they are a little blocky). As such, I expect they come under the
same license as the
for the
distributed 2.0.x kernel, would it be useful to package up a kernel-module of
coda for 2.0? (I'll probably look in to that as well... Though I tend to be on
the bleeding edge myself.)
Now, on to the copyright question. The following is an excerpt from one file
(coda-src/vice/srvproc.cc
that there are other kernel module packages available for the
distributed 2.0.x kernel, would it be useful to package up a kernel-module of
coda for 2.0? (I'll probably look in to that as well... Though I tend to be
on
the bleeding edge myself.)
Now, on to the copyright question
Anders Hammarquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This file contains some code identical to or derived from the 1986
version of the Andrew File System (AFS), which is owned by the IBM
Corporation.This code is provded AS IS and IBM does not warrant
that it is free of infringement of any
I think it's clear the intent is to say that CMU is legally distributing AFS.
the terms under which CMU is distributing it are as stated above and are DFSG
compliant. I think that's all we're concerned with: the terms under which our
users can use, modify, and distribute the software.
So
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 22:08 BST James Troup writes:
David Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Das Aendern des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Das gilt sowohl
fuer den Inhalt als auch fuer das Dateiformat bzw. die
Gestaltung. Auch das Entfernen unliebsamer Passagen ist nicht
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 23:08 +0200 Martin Schulze writes:
David Frey writes:
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
Any comments?
(Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g.
On Jun 25, David Frey wrote
*smile* Some german people have problems understanding swiss people, too.
:-)
*smile* But only if they live too far in the north. Our Bavarian neighbours
don't have this problem at least. ;-)
you can understand a bavarian ? hey, most german can't do that.
David Frey wrote:
PS: Has somebody found a good online dictionary? (A dictionary e.g.
French/English, German/English, not only a word-list)
http://www2.echo.lu/edic/, the technical dictionary published by the
General Directorate XIII of the European Union, is great. You can chose
source and
Hi!
I've got a copyright question. The selfhtml (doc section) package, that
I'll release the next days, has got a copyright that forbid changing the
files. Should I put the package in unstable/stable or in non-free? In my
opinion the package should go to unstable/stable because it's
PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 8:25 AM
To:debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc:Die Adresse des Empfängers ist unbekannt.
Subject: Copyright question
Hi!
I've got a copyright question. The selfhtml (doc section) package, that
I'll release the next days
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote:
The way I read it the copyright just forbids to change the doc files
itself. There is no problem adding our packages files etc. Even renaming
the source tree is not forbidden.
So I'd say put it in the core distribution.
No, I disagree here. At
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
Any comments?
(Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g.
dutch or polish])
Copyright
=
Dieses Dokument ist Freeware im Sinne des
David Frey writes:
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
Any comments?
(Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g.
dutch or polish])
*smile* Some german people have problems understanding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
From: Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
That puts it in non-free.
OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright
issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent is
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
This sentence is still problematic. We are distributing modified
binaries and files to modify the source (though not actually
distributing modified source).
Guy
--
TO
On 3 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright
issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent is
basically to keep companies from charging for it...) Below is the
copyright file I'm distributing with it:
[...]
The
From: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Kees Lemmens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yep, as long as the CDROM's are sold for reasonable prices: all software on
these distributions is free, so they only should be paid for their efforts
to put it on the CD's. I think a maximum of approx. 20-25 $ could be
From: Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
That puts it in non-free.
Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not
allowed.
That too. We are going to start supporting unmodified source + Debian
deltas, but never unmodified
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
Non-free it is
No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed)
_binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free.
What do the others think?
Before we go off
On 1 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
Non-free it is
No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed)
_binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free.
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software
is NOT being commercially distributed.
Please
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
This puts the package into non-free. However...
Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
We need at least the
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
This puts the package into non-free. However...
Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
We need
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
Yes, if a modifying the package isn't allowed, then it cannot go
into the main archive, and has to go into non-free, even if you're
allowed to make money distributing it.
If modifying the package isn't allowed, it can't go anywhere! You
better
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of
modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software
is
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
This puts the package into non-free. However...
Redistribution of
modified versions
Take the public domain part and put it in one package. Take the
non-free part and put it in another package. You already knew this but
I said it as context for the following:
Contact the author and ask them to issue the following more-legaly-correct
license _only_ on the public domain part:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 21.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Take the public domain part and put it in one package. Take the
non-free part and put it in another package. You already knew this but
I said it as context for the following:
Contact the author and ask them to issue
Crack dot Com has decided to release abuse as public domain software. So no
more a.out abuse, once I get the new one built. But I do have a couple of
questions about their copyright:
This release is to the public domain, meaning there are very few
restrictions in on use. But here are a few :
Crack dot Com has decided to release abuse as public domain software. So no
more a.out abuse, once I get the new one built. But I do have a couple of
questions about their copyright:
This release is to the public domain, meaning there are very few
restrictions in on use. But here are a
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This all seems ok except for maybe the export restrictions section. We don't
have a non-Cuba-Yugoslavia-Hati-Iran-Iraq-North-Korea-and-Syria section like
we have a non-us section.. so does abuse belong in non-free or on some
us-only ftp site, or what?
68 matches
Mail list logo
