tax considerations,
most of the things you list don't really seem to be among them.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
oth, since it speaks of Depends and
Recommends (which only apply to binary packages) and Build-Depends
(which only apply to source packages).
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
>
> You're seriou
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphi
s.
> We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
suggesting this, then tha
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
> > decision lies with the archive maintainers.
>
> I see. Where are th
s probably true, but still...
>
> As far as licenses go, if the consensus in debian-legal is that something is
> non-free, you lose.
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision lies with the archive maintainers.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27;t recall a committee, and I'm not sure why there would have been
> one. The OU logo is deliberately non-free--it would serve no purpose
> if it was freely usable.
For the sake of my sanity, can we not use the abbreviation "OU" when the
two things between which it's disamb
; this context. Tried googling in several different ways but didn't get
> any wiser.
http://penguinppc.org/projects/yaboot/doc/yaboot-howto.shtml/ch2.en.shtml
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e seemed to object.
I objected! At least if it's a real build-depends, in which case it will
break d-i autobuilds.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ot convinced that this
would be a valid candidate for sarge-ignore.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s to be a problem. Since it does not grant the rights to distribute
> and sell the modified code, just the distribution without fee.
I'm not sure I believe Theo's interpretation of "without fee" in that
position in the sentence, though. It looks free to me.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:30:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 11:27:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Right now, I've put all GFDL documents without Invariant Sections in
> > main, regardless of the version; if a concrete project-wide decisio
e word out quickly somewhere that Google
likes.
(Please cc me on replies; I'm afraid I ran out of stamina for the bulk
of debian-legal a while back.)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 12:50:38AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 03:42:42PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 06:28:25PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > >1. Send your derivative work (in the most suitable format such as
> &g
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 06:28:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> The following licence is used on a number of LDP documents:
>
> Please freely copy and distribute (sell or give away) this document in any
> format. It's requested that corrections and/or comments be fowarded to
tion: you must allow the
receiver of a copy to read and copy it as they wish.
Also, if libraries want to discourage people from printing out the GNU
Emacs manual, they can and probably will simply put up a sign saying
"please don't print out large documents unnecessarily,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:54:43PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hm, it seems that we're actually a surprisingly large part of the way to
> > being DFSG-free here. There are two stumbling blocks:
> >
> > * There&
at Amstrad do not allow us to
sell the ROMs in themselves; they're happy for people to sell
emulators which embed the ROMs, i.e. "an aggregate software
distribution". Is this good enough?
Assuming my understanding is correct, what would be the best strategy
for approaching Amstrad
02 17:45:02 -0500
Resent-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Resent-Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... so it appears to have been bounced to -legal by the person behind
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s not OSI certified. Does it
> follow that LaTeX is closed source?
-> debian-legal archives ad nauseam
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rified)
Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an
example of a DFSG-free licence.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
im that it's free.
>
> your understanding of opensource is probably not tad better than mine.
> reading these 2 sentences of yours give me the impression (i assume this
> now) that everything not signed GNU/GPL is not free which is for sure
> not correct.
This is absolutel
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:36:00AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > EUR250,- is not much money and until the replacement has been written,
>
though ...
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:35:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:56:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > [please CC me on replies]
> >
> > "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify,
> > or distribute this
gt; 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/
>
>
> This is kinda meta-DFSG and kinda not. it has me confused.
It's no more restrictive than the GPL, at least ...
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ibit selling software as a component of a
distribution, not that you can't prohibit charging for the package
itself.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at might be a good thing.
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/211.pod explains the problems with the original
Artistic, and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html links to
the revised versions.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, although I
would much prefer to see TeX stay in main if possible because of the
knock-on effect it would have on the rest of the distribution, it would
certainly not be any kind of disaster for the GNU info system if we
ended up deciding it was non-free.
--
Colin Watson
to find
out that we didn't have to after all.
> But right now, all we have is a corporation claiming its patent
> covers JPEG, and we all know how they would never lie about that . . .
I've had the impression that the remaining life of the patent is really
quite short, too, and th
id "LD_PRELOAD is available, so use that
instead".
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ention of the
LaTeX project (exact wording aside), I think there is no need to
overreact.
Also, it is really quite unlikely that the DFSG will be changed.
(Branden will no doubt be able to say this with more cynicism than I can
muster ...)
Regards,
--
Colin Watson
ght now?
No, the Linux Documentation Project are using it heavily too. I have to
go out now, but I'll post some thoughts on that in a bit.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
f an Open Publication-licensed document
may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or
copy of the license.
That doesn't sound to me like the default is to have both applied. It
seems to me that this package is OK for main.
Am I missing something?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome.
> Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out
> recently (Colin Watson was active at that), so this item seems to be
> resolved
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 04:21:16PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I have not yet checked if we have perl modules that are only under
> Artistic, and not dual licensed under GPL, but we probably do.
Yes, we do. I maintain one of them (libgetargs-long-perl). :(
--
Colin
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:38:30AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:29:38PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
> > otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary profit
> >
regate distribution as demanded by DFSG#1, and
it doesn't seem to breach the other points. Does this signal that it
should be in main, that there's a deficiency in the DFSG, that there's a
deficiency in my understanding, or something else?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[cc list trimmed]
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:03:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
>
> Keep in mind that the GFDL and OPL are only uncontroversially DFSG-free
> if
second is not (it requires modified versions to be approved by
the author before distribution). Can somebody please confirm this?
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:27:58PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but I understand the
> > problems are with invariant sections used on anything but rather small
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 at 16:48:03 -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 08:14:22PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Would you mind if I forwarded this e-mail of mine on to -legal? It seems
> > as good a place as any to start the discussion.
>
> Please do. I wou
ssion, and will add my own reply in a moment.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Forwarded message from David Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:48:03 -0500
To: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
should be included in non-free sections
> due to limitation in content modifications.
With no options exercised, I believe the OPL is free (dim memory of a
conversation with Bradley Kuhn here, but it may have got garbled in
transit). -legal?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:11:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have. Try the "Choral Public Domain License"
> > (http://cpdl.snaptel.com/license.htm), which is essentially the GPL with
> > "software&q
than the GPL.
>
> The real fear is that someone could change the text in various ways
> and continue to call it the GPL.
Then perhaps it should just say that ("modified versions of this license
may not be called the GPL without prior written permission of the Free
Software F
tm), which is essentially the GPL with
"software" replaced by "music". Was constructing that licence a
copyright infringement?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ons this spring that the
Blackdown folks had got explicit permission from Sun for Debian to
distribute the JDK in non-free. Somebody on -java is likely to know for
sure.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
isible to
the user of your program".
> 1. Modifications should come back to me. This is to prevent the current
>situation where people have long outstanding patches against the Linux
>kernel sitting around that we, as a community, never see. If anything,
>this is a requirement I want to tighten up.
This I'm not sure about. -legal?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nstance, http://source.rfc822.org/pub/mirror/archive.debian.org/>.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
imilar but not the same as mailing lists.
>
> So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that
> each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted
> by Debian to the Usenet News! We did not post to the News, did we?
> It is Debian that posted it!
quot;credits" page'. Since it also allows
redistribution of modified and non-modified versions, it's DFSG-free.
I also believe that this licence is GPL-compatible (the only real
restriction in it is just clause 2(a) of the GPL), but that takes more
legal care to check.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whether I should
mention it when I get in touch with the upstream author.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0:
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ronic form.
Since Debian distributes source code, requiring everybody who downloads
it to sign an agreement is rather onerous (DFSG 7, "Distribution of
License"). There's also stuff about not framing AT&T's website and
monitoring the website for patent infringe
Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>==== Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> What next? "You may not use this gcc to compile censorware programs?"
>> "You may not compile things I disapprove of against this glibc?" If you
>> have any
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was about to ITP icoutils (http://www.student.lu.se/~nbi98oli/src/),
>but I had a last-minute worry about the licence. It's mostly GPL, except
>that some files in the source are distributed under the Wine licence.
The upstream author&
ht notice, which means nothing is
permitted), and you may use it freely.
It's fine for Debian.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:21:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> You may distribute sources of derivative works of the work
>> provided that (1) (a) all source files of the original work that
>> have been modified,
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:21:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> I was about to ITP icoutils (http://www.student.lu.se/~nbi98oli/src/),
>> but I had a last-minute worry about the licence. It's mostly GPL, except
>> t
ent notice explaining the nature and date
of the modification and/or creation. You are encouraged to make
the Necessary Sources available under this license in order to
further the development and acceptance of the work.
I'd appreciate any opinions you might have on th
ay round, the debian/copyright
file needs to have a real copyright statement in it or else the package
can't be distributed at all; I'd suggest just copying the two short
paragraphs from the README above.
I've cc'd this to debian-legal for their opinions.
Thanks,
--
Colin
or maybe just have a flag in /etc/dupload.conf for whether or
not you're a US developer.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
third parties
> under the terms of this License, unless otherwise permitted under
> applicable Fair Use law.
Obviously no problem. Think about what the GPL says, for example!
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lly? I think it would
be a strange interpretation of a "Distribution" of UW-IMAP that extended
to other Debian packages.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
his is not a copyleft: the
software doesn't have to stay free, and you can make it into proprietary
software if you like. But that doesn't stop it being DFSG-free.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ributions of this material without the
express written consent of the copyright holders.
... it's reasonable to assume that derivations that are distributed
without charge or at cost are permitted.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
keep the
software free, while, according to the lawyer you quote, the Cyrus
licence seeks to restrict commercial use to let them make more money.
The intents aren't really that similar.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
f the CD image is the only
thing you have, then you won't make any money anyway. Therefore
presumably you have something else to offer. Concentrate on that.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you give. If the CD image is the only
thing you have, then you won't make any money anyway. Therefore
presumably you have something else to offer. Concentrate on that.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rogram, write a proprietary extension to it for which I kept
the source code to myself, call the proprietary extension a "major
component" of my operating system, and thus defeat the GPL. This is
obviously not the intent of the license.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rogram, write a proprietary extension to it for which I kept
the source code to myself, call the proprietary extension a "major
component" of my operating system, and thus defeat the GPL. This is
obviously not the intent of the license.
--
Colin Watson
even choose to
display the description ("Debian GNU/Linux is a free distribution of the
GNU/Linux operating system ...") as a short description of that site. In
this context, the normally unrendered parts of the HTML source *are*
significant, though of course they are not the sole problem.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>begin Colin Watson quotation:
[trn license]
>> +Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
>> +otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary profit
>> +gained specifically from the
___
Trn-announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/trn-announce
- End forwarded message -
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
76 matches
Mail list logo
