Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about "the rights attached to the program" and other such ph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What puzzles me are the words "WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT". Is that phrase
>sufficient to cause US export restrictions to be incorporated into the
>license? My understanding is that if so, it would not be DFSG-free, and
No. It merely remarks that the license does not give y
bob marlet wrote:
> hi, Eterm was removed from debian testing because a
> problem of license : there is a "cannot be sold for
> profit" in some source file. is it possible to include
> Eterm in non-free?
> see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00572.html
>
> "cannot be sold for pr
Hi debian-legal,
While helping with a license audit of the largely LGPL'ed project ROOT
(message CC'ed to project contacts), I happened to notice that the
license for source package krb5, from which the ROOT source uses some
code, contains the following clauses:
-
Export of this software from
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:36:11 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote:
>
>
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to
> > be by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the
> > clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc?
> > I think that c
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:44:54 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote:
>
>
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Please note the adjective "effective"!
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > A) Why are these two clauses different from one another?
> >
> > B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance?
> >
On 8/17/06, Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4
is patented. It's well known.
In general, we do not know that filed patents are valid
patents.
In general, most patents which apply to programs that
run on general purpose computers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
>> opposite of current practice.
>I think it's against the DFSG1 "Free Redistribution" and the DFSG3
>"Derived Works".
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguin
Am 2006-08-17 22:44:25, schrieb Weakish Jiang:
>
>
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> I thought we didn't care
> > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
> > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
> > patented.
> >
> Unless the patent
On 8/18/06, Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Gran wrote:
>> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
>> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
>
> This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
>
Stephen Gran wrote:
>> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
>> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
>
> This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
> opposite of current practice.
I think it's against
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian does not handel any software patents
The Debian project deals with the freedom of software for users of
Debian. If that freedom is restricted by law, it doesn't matter the
means used.
> since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual
bob marlet wrote:
>
> "cannot be sold for profit" is ok with non-free?
It's Ok.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi, Eterm was removed from debian testing because a
problem of license : there is a "cannot be sold for
profit" in some source file. is it possible to include
Eterm in non-free?
see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00572.html
"cannot be sold for profit" is ok with non-free?
we need
On Aug 17, 2006, at 16:44, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Patents on decoding something can not be enforced.
How so?
(Note that the unenforceability of the Welch patent against LZW
decompression was due to the way the claims were drafted--not due to
a general rule.)
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PRO
Am 2006-08-16 11:04:44, schrieb Bas Wijnen:
> Hello,
>
> When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux.
> According to
> the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the
> MPEG2/MPEG4
> codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is
> ne
16 matches
Mail list logo
