I moved the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
(please CC me).
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:05:25PM +, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:45:25PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
Again, this is not the language that the AGPL uses. It requires that
your modified version
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:04:53PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I don't think there are any problems with the AGPL and indeed I might
well consider using the AGPL for works of my own. I don't have time
That is not very interesting, because if you are the sole copyright holder, you
do not have to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:23:21PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:32:10 MJ Ray wrote:
Here the scenario becomes impossible IMO - if Z is truly a bad actor,
Z will always either find a way to withhold their source code or
develop on an alternative A's
Hello Debian legal,
I'd like to share two issue I found with the AGPL, for the record.
REFERENCES:
The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) is essentially the GNU General
Public License with the following additional clause reproduced below.
See
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Greg Harris wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
Hello Debian legal,
The AGPL has been the topic of multiple extended and heated discussions
during my short time subscribed
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:21:24AM +0100, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El martes, 5 de diciembre de 2006 a las 13:57:48 -0800, Jeff Carr escrib?a:
I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
also use
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not reasonable for the project to vote on questions of legality, nor
is it appropriate to rely on debian-legal for questions of legality. If the
May I remind that debian-legal is a mailing list ?
relevant
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And hi to everyone from /.!
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along
at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun
Java' on debian-devel-announce would have
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers
of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive
are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of
authority is.
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply
is none.
The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for
Debian
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:49:50PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
The ipv6calc upstream tarball database directory contains a README saying:
Because of unknown license issues, the database files aren't
included in source tarball (cleanup by make distclean), but
will be retrieved on make
Thus
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the
problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least
damaging route to go for, imho.
You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner.
...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the
archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict
deadline for pulling it, if not
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the
upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't...
The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. New packages
the process to add new packages
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:09:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
At least so far as I understand it, the ftp-masters (i.e., the people who
did this check) are the people responsible for verifying and checking
licenses in uploaded packages and debian-legal exists as an advisory body
for the
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:24:50PM -0700, kris wrote:
We are releasing some software and would like to
make sure it is compatible with debian.
We have been told that this is the current license to
use for UC produced works.
http://www.ucop.edu/ott/permissn.html
I searched the archives
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I *do* think that the spirit behind the AGPL and Affero-inspired
clause in the GPLv3 is fully in line with our principles. *Users* of
software should be able to modify their software.
There is the issue of defining *users*. My
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:18:06AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next
Moglen:
I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the
kernel. If the kernel's terms were
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:36:14PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
The Debian Project has been distributing this work in violation of my
copyrights. I've previously requested this be remedied in 2003, the
situation remains uncorrected:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 08:10:06PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I have recently been wondering if it would be possible to come up with
some way of splitting -legal up in order to make it more approachable
for outsiders. Unfortunately it seems that -legal is prone to enormous
threads that often
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it:
A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in
/usr/share/doc/abiword/copyright are out of date, as is
URL: http://www.abisource.com/tm_guide.phtml .
Package: kernel-source-2.4.25
Version: 2.4.25-1
Severity: serious
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
/*
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice
Hello Debian legal,
I have made a very cursory check of firmware in the 2.4.25 kernel.
If you want some fun first, look at [2] below.
Basically I have looked at filenames matching *fw*.[ch]:
firmware with complete source code (in assembly):
drivers/char/ser_a2232fw.h
Hello debian-legal,
Suppose I remove all the non-invariant sections of a GFDL document that
have some sections marked invariant.
Are the invariant sections still secondary?
If not, can I still distribute the resulting document ?
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large red swirl
severity 153467 important
thanks
Hello debian-legal and Florian,
As discussed previously, it seems there is nothing to do about this
issue short of moving main in non-US-EU-JP. So I downgrade the severity
to important so that we can release sarge someday :).
If you have new informations about
severity 153467 serious
thanks
Hello developers,
The JPEG commitee has released a press kit about the patend issue, see
http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel4.html.
Could someone that understand legalese make a summary for further discussion
about what to do Debian-wise?
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#153467: libjpeg62: JPEG is patent-encumbered
Reply-To: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-From: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL
29 matches
Mail list logo
