Re: EPL and GPL incompatibility

On 10/09/16 16:45, George Bateman wrote: Also, if upstream are wrong, is the mechanism described at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs sufficient to resolve the problem? Yes, they should granting an additional permission to link with libraries covered by the Eclipse

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

On 21/09/16 01:46, Ben Finney wrote: Thanks for raising this question. Eriberto Mota writes: Well, the quoted event resulted in a file with 14 million passwords, distributed by Kali Linux. Do you have any reference to the discussions those people had over their license

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

On 21/01/16 22:33, jonathon wrote: 5. When applying changes to the source code you need to leave your name, your email address and the date of your modifications so that other people may contact you. Fails the Desert Island Test jonathon Maybe not. a) The guy could have an email address

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

Some general feedback: On 21/01/16 22:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: CONVERTIBLE FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE Version 0.8, 2016-01-21 , *** This is just a draft *** copyright 2016, by Elmar Stellnberger Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document. You must

Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

If the current FAQ entry related to PHP hasn't changed since http://web.archive.org/web/20051016231155/http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, I don't think the entry, and most importantly the phrase « That license, up to the 3.x which is actually out, is not really usable for anything

Re: non free broadcom-sta-dkms_6.30.223.248-3_all.deb for wireless driver bmc4313

On 30/10/15 01:05, Gabriel Tachtatzis wrote: First time use non-free.I do not know nothing how must used.I can use this driver bcm4313 Sorry. I tray install driver wireless bcm4313. I install in easy in ubuntu 15.10 but have problem with debian. The non-free do no understand if i can use.

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text. However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes with COPYING and COPYING.LESSER files with the text of GPL and LGPL, which seems to imply they wanted to allow distributing the program under (L)GPL. Seems worth a

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

On 18/10/15 23:27, Eriberto wrote: Thanks Riley and Ángel! Ángel, The copyright notices in headers should be considered as priority over licenses inside generical files. So, the upstream intents provided by generical copyright files shouldn't be considered when packaging and if the files have

Re: Source files

On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: The alternatives you propose are vague at best. For further details on what I think about the definition of source, anyone interested may read my essay:

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

El 13/10/15 21:53, Ben Finney escribió: Dmitry Smirnov writes: But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and how... The goal of excluding specific people, or groups of people, is not

Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0

On 13/06/15 06:36, Walter Landry wrote: Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote: I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor thing. I don't think requiring that

Re: Consensus about the Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0

On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote: Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote: Here are a few comments about the license. - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free. I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort in addition to the

Re: Is libav's current packaging scheme OK for Debian?

(CCing Bálint again, see previous mail in https://lists.debian.org/557459e3.6090...@debian.org) On 07/06/15 16:49, Simon McVittie: On 07/06/15 14:19, Bálint Réczey wrote: The question now is how we should interpret DFSG with regard to Live DVD-s. Should we stop packaging Libav (and later

Re: GPL + question

On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote: Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as. Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would say... Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else permission to change the license of a work. Who

Re: GPL + question

On 31/05/15 00:10, Riley Baird wrote: On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200 Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license... Exactly. So, if a work is originally licensed under GPL-2+ and Person A makes a copy and gives it to Person B

Re: Dual licensed LGPL2.1/GPL3 linking to GPL3 with OpenSSL exception

On 28/02/15 02:31, Riley Baird wrote: Hi -legal! I was reviewing a package classified-ads for Debian, and I noticed a potential problem in the process. Namely, the author of the program has decided to use GPL3 with the OpenSSL exception. However, they have taken some files from Nokia which

Re: Bug#779377: Dual licensed LGPL2.1/GPL3 linking to GPL3 with OpenSSL exception

On 01/03/15 00:05, Riley Baird wrote: Or they could keep the files from Nokia under LGPL2.1, and use GPL3+openssl exception for the rest of the files. Given that they have proper headers, I don't see a problem with that, although I would mention that in the readme. But what license would the

Re: Does logo under CC BY SA makes entire project SA

Simon pointed out the key question: if it is a derivative work or just an aggregation of two works (code + logo, or logo + text). I don't think it would be considered a derivative but IANAL. Also note that even if the executable was a derivative work of the logo (and thus subject to the

Re: Some questions about trademark, copyright and dfsg

2) As a way to get funding and money. If a commercial company wants to support an open source project by becoming sponsor and include their logo in the software (for instance in an about menu or in the map of a game). Their logo and name are obviously trademarked and copyrighted. If I

Re: Standard implementation of constant, copyright or not ?

On 15/01/15 23:39, Guilherme Brondani Torri wrote: Thank you Walter. Perhaps I should be more specific about the usage of the headers. The included headers are distributed verbatim. The headers are included verbatim (stored as a constant string) into the binary. The headers provide physical

Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library

Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Dear fellas who know much more about licensing than me. I might have even asked before (since we are in a similar situation with PyMVPA/shogun) but forgot what was the summary: If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible license (e.g. BSD-3 or

Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

Thorsten Glaser wrote: Ángel González dixit: On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote: You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP - but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a product derived from PHP but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make

Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote: On the other hand, my own reading of the PHP Licence is that we may not, in fact, distribute (binaries of) modified versions of PHP software (the interpreter as well as everything else under that licence), period - but You could not distribute other