severity 290242 serious
retitle 290242 Prozilla is non-free: requires notification for commercial use
thanks
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
Confirmed;
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 06:37:55PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
That is by far the most
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
term to mean exactly that.
I can't see (from a quick sampling of the items in there) that any
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be
used at all commercially, assuming the common
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
Michael Edwards wrote:
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
it's still performance.
Right, this was the very specific question we were getting to. :-)
In determining the DFSG-freeness of a
I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a
telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our
suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this
is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that
needs to be sent proprietary data for a legitimate reason (in the
sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is legitimate).
Habeas SWE.
I believe SpamAssassin implements the server side (through hashes to
avoid
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of
I wrote:
In contrast, pre-1986 (I think) US law specified that works published (==
deliberately distributed to the public by their authors) without a
copyright
statement went into the public domain.
Michael Edwards wrote:
1976; but otherwise basically correct (IANAL)
Checked this one
Michael Edwards wrote:
If one wants to remove ambiguity about the copyright status of small
contributions to a joint work, one could require either assignment of
copyright to the primary holder or formal placement into the public
domain,
One of the very unfortunate side effects of the Berne
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld,
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result (caused by the act) of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.
You only idemnify the author to the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:13:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
This is the Common Public License, version 1.0, with the revision
right solely tied to IBM. This is a bit surprising, but doesn't have
any impact on the DFSG-freeness of the this
Scripsit Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
Yes, if
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways.
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:18:14AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:13:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes, if this is indeed a licence term. As quoted here it could also be
a non-legal notice that the author considers commercial use without
notification to be not
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
anywhere it pleases. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not copyrighted works.
--
Raul
--
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
libraries, included whichever one Debian shipped it with.
No, it's not a
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
people at graphviz org intended it either.
It can't be an issue for DFSG-freeness, because of this part:
The Program (including Contributions) may always be
Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of implied license as
an implied provision in the existing contract:
quote section=FN1
The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was
primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal
law. In an opinion
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
So you are basically saying that aiding or hinting the end-user to
create these would-be derivative works is enough to be violating the
license?
That's overstated. It's enough to have to argue the point in court and
be unsure of
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:28:42PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
The DFSG supposedly allow users to use Debian-distributed software in
any way they wish. The theme of this thread seems to be that some
people believe run-time linking of an application against a GPLed
library, when there are
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
So you are basically saying that aiding or hinting the end-user to
create these would-be derivative works is enough to be violating the
license?
That's overstated. It's enough to have to
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain
Hi,
There's been a lenghty (but in my opinion more fruitful) discussion of
similar matters on the Linux kernel mailing list. We all know that FSF
might be sometimes seen as interpreting its licenses very strictly, but
we also know that OTOH Linus has much more permissive approach.
Yet, if you
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:58:53PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
They aren't with any degree of certainty.
It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
They haven't tried. All Microsoft have done to them so far is
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:28:42PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
The DFSG supposedly allow users to use Debian-distributed software in
any way they wish. The theme of this thread seems to be that some
people believe run-time linking of an application against a GPLed
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:58:53PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
They aren't with any degree of certainty.
It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
They haven't tried.
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fail to see the relevance of this paragraph to the discussion at
hand. The
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:19 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
when you build it.
How many times does it have to be
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and
On 13 Jan 2005 15:05:36 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
[snip]
Even according to Linus such use is not permitted
http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/Dec/1042.html
Linux header files are different from Java packages in a number of
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
Do you understand that an interpreter for Java IS such an interpreter
that provides bindings to other facilities?
Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
Do you understand that
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:19:36 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
But in our case you're using an implementation that also at the same
time defines the interface (this if functional equivalent of header
files). You cannot simply take a GPL implementation, compile
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered by
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:28 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
derived from any of
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
people at graphviz org intended it either.
The Program (including Contributions) may always be distributed
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:16:53 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[quoting Michael Poole]
It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that
needs to be sent proprietary data for a legitimate reason (in the
sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is legitimate).
Habeas SWE.
I believe SpamAssassin implements the
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
on a website
Scripsit Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
I guess I'm convinced. :-)
That the GPL is legally an offer of contract? If so, it's good to
know that the substance of my argument is persuasive to at least one
person besides myself. :-)
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Putting it differently: if that was allowed, then why do we need glibc
to be LGPLed, and not GPLed? After all the C language and its basic
libraries are also standarized to great extent.
I can see no real reason.
But having glibc purely GPL
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his
Hello Henning,
thank you for your help.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:58PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream
source which says that the program is covered by the GPL.
Does this mean we need all the notes from the source files with
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
I have a question about how to write the debian/copyright file
for packages which are distributed under the GPL.
Currently the debian/copyright file of chbg contains the paragraph
Chbg is copyrigthed by Ondrejicka Stefan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). It
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
been discussing (I already said it in
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets.
This assumes that DFSG #8 means that Debian can be given rights over and
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recently Justin Pryzby filed bug #290087 against chbg, claiming
that the debian/copyright file should instead contain the 3
paragraphs as found in
/usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/native/copyright, which turn
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program.
Eclipse+Kaffe contains Kaffe, GPL 2 then exempts mere aggregation --
which
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:21:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
As is the creation of a critical essay on libc. But that's not a
derivative work either.
But an annotated edition of libc is. A program seems far more
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they
would have to use terms of art instead of derivative or collective
works, and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to
create an action for breach
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 17:24 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
that basically goes over
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has come up in the past, under the argument that requiring this violates
the under the same terms as the license of the original software provision
of DFSG#3: you aren't allowed to distribute modifications under the same
terms you received them, but
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 18:13 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being
Is this relevant to Eclipse? I was under the impression that Eclipse
was pure java -- that it did not use JNI at all.
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
to work around the GPL or
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:25:49PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:58:53PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
They aren't with any degree of certainty.
It's certain
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:00:05 +, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got lost somewhere along the way: Why is it important to you whether
the GPL is a contract or not?
To me, personally? It bugs me to see needless conflicts within the
Free Software world caused by GPL interpretations
Change the name of the package will have to be changed to the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks and I think it's completely unobjectionable. IANADD,
IANAL. Thanks to Gervase for being such a pro.
Cheers,
- Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
the GPLed work.
As an aside, what's to stop a party, having violated the GPL at some
point (and therefore having had their
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These facilities include class loading, class instantiation,
synchronization, garbage collection (ie. you can trigger GC from within
your program), reflection (ie. you can ask VM what are methods that
this class have?).
Those are features of
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
You are ignoring the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:25:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:00:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
I can only find it currently in 2 packages in Debian--prozilla and elinks.
The others that used it in
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what
severity 290242 serious
retitle 290242 Prozilla is non-free: requires notification for commercial use
thanks
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
Confirmed;
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 06:37:55PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
That is by far the most
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding [PMX:VIRUS] Re: will not be received.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
severity 290242 serious
retitle 290242 Prozilla is non-free: requires notification for commercial use
thanks
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
term to mean exactly that.
I can't see (from a quick sampling of the items in there) that any
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:06:29AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
term to mean exactly that.
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
