Re: TrueType/OpenType and anti-circumvention laws

* Walter Landry: > Paul Wise writes: >> On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 20:16 -0500, P. J. McDermott wrote: >>> Ping?  Any thoughts on whether a font DRM modification tool would be >>> legal to distribute and use in Debian given that the DRM is a simple bit >>> field rather than an "effective" TPM such as

Re: License violations for dependencies of Rust and Go programs?

* John Thorvald Wodder, II: > It is my understanding that when an executable program that depends (directly > or indirectly) on libraries licensed under (picking one license here) the MIT > license is compiled into a binary that statically links these libraries, and > this binary is then

Re: Nmap Public Source License Version 0.94 - Is it DFSG-compliant?

* Sam Hartman: >> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes: > Francesco> I am under the impression that a more correct way to > Francesco> achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to > Francesco> create a different license, possibly reusing some parts > Francesco> of

Re: do SPDX declaration fulfill §17 of GPL?

* Nicholas D. Steeves: > Hi, > > I found a problematic change in one of my packages: > > > https://github.com/KDE/kio-gdrive/commit/6321fda6294e3d021b7a2758c1200aa42debb021 > > This looks like a regression of license validity to me, because the > fulfillment of §17 of the GPL was removed from

Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work

* Nicholas D. Steeves: > Hi, > > Adrian Bunk writes: > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >>> it would still not be DFSG-free, because it >>> fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer >>> Consulting would accept email, it would

Re: Are ASN.1 modules code or specification?

* Andreas Metzler: > It is not uncommon to directly generate C source from ASN.1 modules. Is that really true? Are there high-quality free ASN.1 toolchains? In my experience, the ASN.1 modules in RFCs are mostly used like the packet layout diagrams, as an informal description, but I never had

Re: UEFI Revocation List being distributed by Debian

* Paul Wise: > On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 07:26 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> It also has to be optional and disabled by default because a future >> dbx update may be specifically designed to stop Debian systems from >> booting. No Debian user will want to install s

Re: UEFI Revocation List being distributed by Debian

* Paul Wise: > This sort of data is liable to be out of date if included in the > source code of fwupd, I think this should be separate to fwupd in the > same way that tzdata is separate to glibc and DNSSEC root keys are > separate to DNS servers and the web PKI CAs should be separate to web >

Re: question about licensing for ruby-spdx-licenses

* Gabriel Filion: > From what I could gather, the website specifies that all content is > covered by CC-BY 3.0: > > https://spdx.org/Trademark > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/terms/ > > However, I'm not completely sure that the information I found is precise > enough.. The upstream repository

Re: Maxmind GeoIP/Geolite license change

* Patrick Matthäi: > [1]: https://www.maxmind.com/en/geolite2/eula | 3. Destructions of GeoLite2 Database and GeoLite2 Data. From time to | time, MaxMind will release an updated version of the GeoLite2 | Databases, and you agree to promptly use the updated version of the | GeoLite2 Databases.

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

* Andrej Shadura: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:48, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> >> But again I say that this program is GPL-licensed, but it can be used >> freely (of charge) for non commercial purposes only, but proprietary >> (one must purchase license) for commercial use. >> >> So I think this

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Ian Jackson: >> In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less >> clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used >> to gain permission to combine the work with an AGPL work, especially >> if this is done in an "open core" context. > > Florian, are you still

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Roberto: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less >> clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used >> to gain permission to combine the work with an

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Andrej Shadura: > Hi, > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 14:38, Eriberto Mota wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I have a basic doubt. >> >> A program called "test" was released by Bob over GPL-2+. This program >> got contributions from Ana and Chloe. The development was stopped some >> years later and, now,

Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL

* Adam Borowski: > In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the > following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible: > > ## > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification. > Thus, like any non-source

Re: Inquiry regarding Artistic License

* npdflr: > I chose to ask on mailto:debian-legal@lists.debian.org as I thought > this involves legal issues. “Legal issues” in this context largely mean issues related to Debian's policies regarding which software can be distributed. Debian chooses not to distribute a lot of software which it

Re: Inquiry regarding Artistic License

* npdflr: > Thanks Florian and Daniel for your replies. > I would definitely file a bug. But if the author demands some money or > something else then would Debian.org take responsibility or I (users > of debian OS) have to take responsibility or both. It depends on how the demand for money is

Re: Inquiry regarding Artistic License

* npdflr: > If I download package(s) from debian main which has artistic license > and if there is an issue regarding license being non-free (or the > author not approving the license to be used as per DFSG) then who > should I contact to solve the issue or in other words who would be > taking

Re: GPL and the "system library" exception

* Ansgar Burchardt: > People have argued before that this applies to Debian. In that case > Debian wouldn't be able to distribute binaries of GPL-2-only programs > linking against any GPL-3+ runtime libraries like libstdc++? Or am I > missing something? Yes, I think we need the system library

Re: no need to keep non-copylefted files that way in a copylefted project. (was Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence)

* Bradley M. Kuhn: > David Lamparter wrote: >> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes >> for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to >> try and honour the original author's requests. > > That's an odd request, since it

Re: redistribution of the ARIN TAL

* Marco d'Itri: > ARIN believes that they have a right to limit distribution of this RSA > public key (used for verification of routing security): > > https://www.arin.net/resources/rpki/arin-rfc7730.tal Do they actually do that? Prevent redistribution? If so, I can't find where. > Does

Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence

* Paul Jakma: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roberto wrote: > >> On the other side, if I understood correctly, there are authors who >> want to contribute their code under GPL exclusively, and they feel >> that some of their changes got included into the bundled libraries >> (and are significant

Re: Bug#915537: MongoDB SSPL v1 license and the DFSG

* Apollon Oikonomopoulos: > What this section says (at least to my eyes), is that the SSPL requires > *all software* interfacing with MongoDB to form a "service" to be > licensed under the SSPL too. This is a much broader restriction than > linking, but still does not seem to violate DFSG #9.

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

* Adam Jackson: > On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 22:56 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Motif has since been released under the LGPL, so this is largely >> of historic interest. >> >> Was the license of OpenMotif ever submitted to OSI? >> >> <http://www.openg

The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

Motif has since been released under the LGPL, so this is largely of historic interest. Was the license of OpenMotif ever submitted to OSI? Debian clearly considered it non-DFSG-compliant, but I can't find a discussion why this was the case. In

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Which is better, assignment of rights, or licensing rights? (Tentacles of Evil Test)

* Cem F. Karan: > When I use the term "assignment", I mean that the original > copyright/IP owner gives the ownership of the IP to some other > entity. The problem is that the new owner can choose new licensing > terms as they fit, as the IP is now their property. Choosing > licensing means

Re: Which is better, assignment of rights, or licensing rights? (Tentacles of Evil Test)

* Cem F. Karan: > In my personal view, I think that Debian should lean towards licenses, > and discourage assignments where possible; that ensures that if > someone is a bad actor, then there will still be a chance to fork the > code and continue open development as all the good actors will still

Re: MongoDB Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

* Paul Wise: > For your convenience, I have included a full copy of the mail below, > which includes a justification section as well as full license terms. The license appears to be an unlicensed derivative work of the GPLv3, which is not itself licensed under a permissive license. I'm not sure

Re: MongoDB Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

* Xavier: >> From: Eliot Horowitz >> Date: Tue Oct 16 13:03:02 UTC 2018 >> Subject: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, >> Version 1 (SSPL v1) >> ... >> “If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version >> available to third parties as a service, you must

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

* Thomas Preud'homme: > The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are: > > - Is a non-ultimate build DFSG ok? > - Does the ultimate build respect the GPLv3? > > I'm leaning towards yes (because no usage restriction, source > available, GPLv3 which allow redistribution with or

Re: Running an external JBIG2 encoder if one exists

* Sean Whitton: > An upcoming release of OCRmyPDF, which I maintain in Debian, will call > jbig2 if it can be found on PATH, or gracefully degrade. On Debian, > this won't do anything, since we don't have that package. We have JBIG2 decoders, I think. Surely that is sufficient for OCR?

Re: SHA1 implementation by Steve Reid

* Carsten Leonhardt: > Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > >> The apparent intent, as evidenced by the copyright statement in the >> source code parts of RFC 6234, is that the code parts are available >> under that licensing option, even though they are n

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

* Ian Jackson: > Debian is not likely to accept a restriction on modifying glyphs. We > consider that Debian (and its downstreams and users) must be free to > make changes - even changes that upstreams disapprove of. We have historically accepted restrictions like these: | The programs for

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

* Paul Jakma: > It's less clear to me though whether there is an issue on the copyright > and GPLv2+ licence side. The concern that has been raised with me is > that the Cisco grant is conditional and revocable with potential > royalties applying, while the GPLv2+ seems to require

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

* Philip Hands: > P.P.S. Does anyone really expect a consensus to emerge where we decide > to ignore the exception to the exception across the board without > consulting lawyers? I think there are several people in this thread > (myself included) that have demonstrated that they're going to

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Checking the ARL's scheme for releasing software

* Cem F. Karan: >> In the past, I think the main problem with U.S. government works was that >> some agencies merely repeated the legal situation regarding >> copyright in government works, and it was not very clear if those agencies >> intended to pursue copyright claims abroad (perhaps even

Re: Checking the ARL's scheme for releasing software

* Cem F. Karan: > The background: most works produced by the US Government (USG) do not have > copyright attached. As a result, ARL's lawyers believe that licenses that > rely on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0, GPL, etc.) could be challenged in court, > and declared invalid in toto, which means

System libraries and the GPLv2 (was: Re: GnuTLS in Debian)

* Andreas Metzler: > Problems: > - > GnuTLS 2.12.x is dated. It is upstream's old-old-old stable release > (followed by 3.[012].x). The latest bugfix release happened in > February 2012, later security fixes have not been solved by releases but > by patches in GIT. GnuTLS 2.12.x does not

Re: Include pieces of internal kernel header in GPL-3 project

* Jan Luca Naumann: > Hey, > > the problem is that this structure was in a uapi header until Linux 4.4 > but it was replaced by a new header file in this kernel version. I'm not > the upstream author of the code so I'm not sure if there is another way > to access the functionality used in the

Re: Include pieces of internal kernel header in GPL-3 project

* Jan Luca Naumann: > Hey, > > the project I want to package is "sedutil": > https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil > > The concrete problem/possible solution are described in my attempt to > fix it: >

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

* Yaroslav Halchenko: > Would you consider this short custom license DFSG-free and > compatible for reuse/integration within projects under more > permissive (MIT/BSD) or copyleft licenses such as GPL. (do not want > to burden/prime you with my analysis). > // 4. If anything other than

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

* Paul Wise: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Eriberto Mota wrote: > >> Can rockyou be packaged in Debian, considering that Kali will put a >> DFSG-compatible license for this wordlist? > > Kali certainly isn't the owner of the wordlist so they definitely > can't put a license on it. > > OTOH,

Re: EADL license

* Walter Landry: > The EADL data was created by US Government employees (Lawrence > Livermore). So there is no copyright in the US. Also, in the US, > there is no copyright in a set of facts. However, as a courtesy, you > should preserve the credits. Debian is also available in Europe, where

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

* Paul R. Tagliamonte: > Have a link to 3-4 such webpages I can take a look at? “Copyright laws differ internationally. While a U.S. government work is not protectable under U.S. copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in these

Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog

* Mark Weyer: > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:29:31PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: >> OBS (https://obsproject.com/) is licensed under GPL-2. >> However, it needs to accept license dialog to use it when you start program. >> Is it dfsg-free one? I think it would be like click-wrap software. > > If

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

* Ben Finney: > As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause > (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore > the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from > the terms when they redistribute the work. It's somewhat

Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing

* Ruben Undheim: I guess that we are all set to include graywolf in Debian now? Yes, this should work, but you should include this permission notice in the sources, when you received it, and who sent it to you (not necessarily the name, the role in the organization is enough). This is

Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer

* Riley Baird: The DD would not be allowed to package it with a 5 user limitation, because then the DD would be imposing a restriction on the software, not the upstream author. This is not quite correct. The user limit would just be a bug, subject to the usual bug fixing procedures in

Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches

* Don Armstrong: There's no real difference between a message with a disclaimer, and one without. That depends on the contents of the disclaimer. The only question is the actual license of the patch. If the person authoring the patch grants a license (or the patch cannot be covered by

Re: Freeness of code automatically generated from RFCs?

* Michael Gilbert: I came across a curiosity while updating the wine package today. I noticed that upstream wine generates one of their source files from the contents of RFC3454 [0]. These days, the IETF has procedures covering data extraction from RFCs. It may make sense to ask them to

Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#769716: iceweasel: downloads Cisco's OpenH264 video codec

* Chuck Peters: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=769716 It seems Mozilla, and Debian have an issues with the MPEG patent. When might Debian distribute openh264 and MPEG LA source and binaries? Debian already distributes H.264 encoders and decoders, so there's no issue there

Re: confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation

* Ben Finney: Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de writes: * Paul Gevers: [3] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/tools/turbocharger/mod_gzip.c?h=debian-sid I don't think this file is even compiled, so its license does not matter. Source packages are part

Re: confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation

* Paul Gevers: [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/lib/util/getoptx.h?h=debian-sid You should investigate if you can use the getopt from glibc, which is released under the LGPL. [3]

Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

* Francesco Poli: On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 + Ian Jackson wrote: Francesco Poli writes (Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0): I am seeking help on bug #689919. I disagree with all of your objections to #689919. Could you please write a (short, but reasoned) point-by-point rebuttal of my

Re: GPL-3 openssl: provide a -nossl variant for a library

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that same operating system. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html

Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF

* Turkey Breast: The basic issue is that this project uses an AGPL license with several additions, which we were given to me by the SFLC and vetted by the FSF. They fix an issue with the AGPL which is unique to Bitcoin (ability to distribute the source code when using a service), add a

Re: Trilinos licensing

* James Cloos: NS == Nico Schlömer nico.schloe...@gmail.com writes: NS I was also a little worried about the public domain disclaimer. Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US federal government employees as part of their work cannot have copyright; they are

Re: Artwork License for package in main

* Dimitry Polivaev: I still have one related question. Could you please explain how we can protect Freeplane logo displayed in program splash screen and used in program icons from being misused if all images are distributed under a free license? What would you consider misuse? If you

Re: Artwork License for package in main

* Felix Natter: upstream of the Freeplane package changed the artwork for the splash screen and the mimetype icon, and the (new) artist wants to keep all rights and only grant the Freeplane project all rights of use. What does this mean exactly? All rights of use could mean all commercial

Re: Trademark policy for ITP Percona XtraBackup

* Stewart Smith: Third, you may use the appropriate Percona mark to refer to a distribution of GPL-released Percona software that has been modified with minor changes for the sole purpose of allowing the software to operate on an operating system or hardware platform for which Percona has

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

* Paul Tagliamonte: On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/ 56.html). This hasn't been reflected in release

Re: License Question

* Daniel Echeverry: I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in debian/copyright file? Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: License Question

* Daniel Echeverry: 2012/12/29 Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de * Daniel Echeverry: I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in debian/copyright file? Can you just remove the file and use

Re: Bug#689095: Forces user to agree to terms of usage before running

* Paul Wise: For the record, this is the string that is printed when you start it for the first time: Transmission is a file-sharing program. When you run a torrent, its data will be made available to others by means of upload. You and you alone are fully responsible for exercising proper

Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing

* Raphael Geissert: TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca- certificates, Fedora says it is non-free. What do the others think about it? If we take CA certificate license

Re: Intellectual disobedience

* Paul Wise: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/05/12/intellectual-disobedience/ http://www.youtube.com/?v=dfGWQnj6RNA Whatever this is, it is too mainstream: | Unfortunately, this SME-music-content is not available in Germany | because GEMA has not granted the respective music publishing rights.

Re: copyright law wackyness

* Bernhard R. Link: * Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de [111225 18:30]: Germany has the same problem, I think, because in order to protect authors from distributors (which are often quasi-monopolistic), there are limits to what license grants authors can make. As a result, a similar

Re: copyright law wackyness

* Ben Finney: You don't have to agree to the party licensing a work to you under the Expat (for example) license terms; but you have the license in that work regardless. Over here, such licensing texts are usually interpreted as offers to enter a contract (under the specified terms), which

Re: copyright law wackyness

* Paul Wise: Anyone else know of any weird copyright law around the world? The main problem here is that authors might change their mind and try to extract compensation from users which appear to be in compliance with the license, right? Germany has the same problem, I think, because in order

Re: Are ‘UniProt’ records complying with the DFSG ?

* Charles Plessy: However, the page at the URL above points at Creative Commons' FAQ about databases, which suggests that the file's contents are actually not copyrightable. http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/ http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/#dbcopyright

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

* Don Armstrong: You're conflating GPLv2 with v3. They are very different with regards to the System Library exception, as I explained in my original message. Please consider rereading it and pointing out precisely where I have misread the license along with supporting quotations from the

Re: CodeIgniter license

* Steve Langasek: There is no requirement in Debian to track the copyright status of the work beyond what's required by statute or by the licenses themselves. If we do not track the copyright status, how can we make sure that the licensing conditions actually match the requirements of the

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

* Stefan Hirschmann: My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this company. From what I've read, it is not clear at all whether a lawyer actually sent anything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

* Andrew Ross: In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText. What is a producer line? Is this visible on the page, or is this some information in the PDF header? In any

Re: CodeIgniter license

* Steve McIntyre: Ben Finney wrote: Its requirement for the modifier's name to be recorded is also a concern. I think the “Dissident” test is violated by this. Which means nothing; it has no solid grounding in the DFSG. We need to keep track of the copyright situation of a work, otherwise

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

* Don Armstrong: CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible (although it is not

Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8

* Khaled Hosny: Fonts are art, many font designer are very concerned about the authenticity of their designs and wouldn't allow modified version to carry the names of their fonts, it is very valid concern. There's also the more pressing concern that altering widths will lead to changed

Re: msntp license

* Charles Plessy: I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written consent of the copyright holders of MSNTP? You can't do that with software released under the Artistic license, either, that's

Re: msntp license

* Charles Plessy: Excerpt from the license: 1. You may distribute MSNTP or components of MSNTP, with or without additions developed by you or by others. No charge, other than an at-cost distribution fee, may be charged for copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without the

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Matthias Klose: On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steve Langasek: It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard this issue as critical for Ubuntu. My personal impression

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Steve Langasek: It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard this issue as critical for Ubuntu. My personal impression is that Debian does not view this issue as critical, either.

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

* MJ Ray: cate wrote: Eugen Dedu wrote: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the any use doesn't include distribution of software. For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non

Re: issues with the AGPL

* Miriam Ruiz: All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too? There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany. Over here, free software licenses are typically considered invitations to enter

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Kalle Olavi Niemitalo: Please consider also the effect of GCC 4.4 on GPLv2-only applications, where the application's licence requires source code under GPLv2, including the source code of libgcc if GCC accompanies the executable, but the source code of libgcc in GCC 4.4 is not available

Re: re module and old Python 1.6 (GPL incompatible) license?

* Anderson Lizardo: I noticed that some files of the re module still have the (GPL incompatible) 1.6 license notice. Is that on purpose or unintentionally forgotten? It is generally assumed that the PSF license grant in the LICENSE file overrides all the other licenses that apply to

Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.

* Charles Plessy: - The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore does not have special requirements for binary distributions. This is incorrect. If the binary includes copyright statements to display them, you may not remove them (see §5 (d) in the GPL version

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Florian Weimer: I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably best not to make GCC 4.4 the default compiler in sid/squeeze. For the record, due

Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL

* Olly Betts: It's possible this FAQ entry may not have been updated for GPLv3 - I notice that it talks about PHP4, which is obsolete now, and PHP5 predates GPLv3. Yes, I think this may be the case. I guess Florian's thinking is based on additional restrictions allowed by GPLv3 7c:

Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL

* Olly Betts: To summarise, php5-xapian wraps the GPLv2+ licensed Xapian library for PHP v3.01 licensed PHP5. The PHP license is fine if you use Xapian under the GPLv3. The remaining problem is the Zend license, which contains an advertizing clause. For historical/political reasons, the FSF

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Josselin Mouette: Le vendredi 10 avril 2009 à 14:35 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : At least with a strict interpretation, the run-time exception suffers from a significant issue with compilers which are not licensed under a GPLv3-compatible license (such as the GPLv2, or the QPL

GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

Starting with version 4.4, the FSF the licenses the GCC run-time library with a special exception: | Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional | permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version | 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. The

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Stéphane Glondu: * The runtime (ocamlrun) is a pure C program, that can be compiled with any C compiler. Customized runtimes (with functions implemented in C) can be generated; in this case, a C file might be generated by ocamlc{,.opt}, and this file is handled the same way as the

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Sylvain Le Gall: But in Debian, we compile with GCC. And for the Int64 module, functionality from libgcc2.c gets compiled into the binary. (This is just the example I've verified.) Int64 module is under LGPL + static link exception (and everything related to runtime library). Does it

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Sylvain Le Gall: byterun/ints.c, function caml_int64_div, the I64_div macro. This is expanded into a plain division operator, and that is compiled into a run-time library call by GCC. I64_div is a function defined either in byterun/int64_emul.h o byterun/int64_native.h. Reading both

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

* MJ Ray: The linked common licence is the modified BSD licence AFAIK, so I don't feel that either of those would be accurate. I've added the unmodified BSD licence with its own entry, along the lines of the wiki description. I'm pretty sure it's in debian. Yes, the DFSG originally referred

Re: URLs for BSD licenses

* Francesco Poli: On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:33:16 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] it claims to be New BSD which seems very untrue, comparing the S3.rb licence to http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license Wow! That's a very useful URL! I've been missing a good (and stable) URL for the 3-clause BSD

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

* Kern Sibbald: Problems of mismatched licenses apparently occur when forming and distributing a mixed binary program or when mixing different licenced source code in the same file and distributing it. As far as I know Bacula 2.4.x does not mix source code with different licenses in the

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

* MJ Ray: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyers and it

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

* Luke Faraone: Would retitling the package carol or wonderland be sufficient to make the package DFSG-free? There is ample precedent that the license is DFSG-compliant as such. If you want to be completely sure, you could ask the copyright holder if it is acceptable to include it in Debian,

Re: RFC: licence of ITP: s3sync-ruby

* MJ Ray: 3. is the licence any obstacle to meeting DFSG? It doesn't mention the act of running the program or using it. Or does this activity fall under display? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

  1   2   3   4   >