Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

2010-02-13 Thread Ben Finney
Guillaume Yziquel writes: > I've noticed a software with a custom licence. Which software work is that? > Seems to roughly adhere to DFSG (section 4 and 6 may not...): > > http://www.cdsmodel.com/cdsmodel/cds-disclaimer.page For reference in this thread, here is the text of the license fou

ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

2010-02-13 Thread Guillaume Yziquel
Hello. I've noticed a software with a custom licence. Seems to roughly adhere to DFSG (section 4 and 6 may not...): http://www.cdsmodel.com/cdsmodel/cds-disclaimer.page Here's section 6, for instance, which seems the most critical: 6. Indemnity for Use of ISDA CDS Standard Model in Deri

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-13 Thread Christofer C. Bell
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Ben Finney > wrote: > Joachim Wiedorn writes: > > > So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. > > Take care: The fact that a work is non-free does not mean the Debian > project has license to redistribute it in the ‘non-free’ section. Ma

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-13 Thread Ben Finney
Joachim Wiedorn writes: > So there is only on step to do: Move d4x into the non-free archive. Take care: The fact that a work is non-free does not mean the Debian project has license to redistribute it in the ‘non-free’ section. Many works are so non-free that they cannot be legally redistribut

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-13 Thread Joachim Wiedorn
Hello, Ben Finney wrote: > No, it violates DFSG §3. So I can do nothing. > > Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his > > old email adress, but I think I get no answer. > > Thank you for this effort, it is necessary to try. Today I have received his answer mail! And he

Re: opencascade license in squeeze

2010-02-13 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:06:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: [...] > The license was never really an issue. There was an explanatory note > which contradicted the license and seemed to add non-free terms, but > that is not the license. As I summarized in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/200

Re: opencascade license in squeeze

2010-02-13 Thread Walter Landry
cristian paul peñaranda rojas wrote: > Hello, > > I was checking opencascade in lenny was in non-free, but in queeze > is in main-free now :D > > So i guess the new license is okay with debian legal and free > sofware, but can anyone in shorts word explainme why please :) From the changelog at