License concerns regarding package lft

2007-05-31 Thread Martin Millnert
Hello Debian Legal, I stumbled upon a package, lft, and noticed that the distributed packaged was somewhat of age. I looked it up and found quite updated source at the program developers webpage [1]. So I pondered over why this is not included; maybe the package maintainer is just asleep. Then I

Bug#426960: bitstormlite: GPL application (indirectly) linking to OpenSSL

2007-05-31 Thread Ming Hua
Package: bitstormlite Version: 0.2k-1 Severity: serious Justification: license incompatibility The bitstormlite package currently in archive, 0.2k-1, links to libcurl4-openssl, and therefore indirectly links to libssl. Since bitstormlite is licensed under GPL with no exceptions, I believe there i

Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license

2007-05-31 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:47:37 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game [...] > All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. Good. > All the game content, > sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 > Attribution license ( http:/

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-05-31 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:13:25 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: > > "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections > >from > -legal > > > >I don't think that this

Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license

2007-05-31 Thread Marco d'Itri
On May 31, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 is > DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the repositories? The ftpmasters do. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#383316: Please vet this modified CC license for uploading FoF music to non-free (was: Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto?)

2007-05-31 Thread Joe Smith
"Jason Spiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/15/07, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... How about: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly

Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license

2007-05-31 Thread Miriam Ruiz
Hi, I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game called "Which Way Is Up?" ( http://hectigo.net/puskutraktori/whichwayisup/ ) and maintain it. All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. All the game content, sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution lic

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-05-31 Thread Joe Smith
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from -legal I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. See http://lists.debian.or