TrueCrypt License 2.5

2008-09-25 Thread Philipp Hübner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I would like to know if TrueCrypt 6 would be accepted for non-free. I know there have already been 2 threads about the TrueCrypt License: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00294.html

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-25 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi all, There's no real reason why the GPL itself would not be suitable. In fact, in most cases, it's what you actually want, because having the prefered form of modification for the images and audio avaiable is the best thing to help make minor changes and bug fixes to artwork and/or audio.

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.5

2008-09-25 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:50:51 +0200 Philipp Hübner wrote: Hello, I would like to know if TrueCrypt 6 would be accepted for non-free. I know there have already been 2 threads about the TrueCrypt License: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00294.html

permission to remove the When you use this, send an email to requirement from the MTRand code

2008-09-25 Thread Raphael Geissert
Hello everybody, At Debian we have recently stumbled upon a hidden[0] clause[1] in a source code file included in PHP since php4. Since this clause is not free in terms of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)[2] it prevents us (Debian) from distributing the php interpreter. I am thereby

Bug#498621: marked as forwarded (PHP5 - ext/standard/rand.c is not dfsg conform)

2008-09-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:56:58 -0500 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] has caused the report #498621, regarding PHP5 - ext/standard/rand.c is not dfsg conform to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software author(s) [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL

Re: permission to remove the When you use this, send an email to requirement from the MTRand code

2008-09-25 Thread Richard Wagner
Hi Raphael, You hereby have my permission to remove the clause referring to me, [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Richard J. Wagner On Sep 25, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote: Hello everybody, At Debian we have recently stumbled upon a hidden[0] clause[1] in a source code file included in

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-25 Thread Ben Finney
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We've had a better look at the GPL and it does seem quite suitable. Thanks for progressing with this, and reporting your further thoughts and questions. As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a game. These are mostly

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-25 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3. This would have a license grant something like: This work is free

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-25 Thread Ben Finney
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly useful. I see it differently. What the GPLv2 means is

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-09-25 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to object code which was not

Re: DFSG compatibility of the Poetic License

2008-09-25 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maximilian Gaß [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These rights, on this notice, rely. Is this meant to have some legal meaning? Or should we ignore it? The poem is obviously a form of translation of a simple permisive license