invalid (§9 and §10 are
purely informational), I don’t see it a problem, though.
However, regarding compatibility with other GPL components (if there are
any), I wouldn’t be so sure.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
, at least packages including array input
method could be kept in main.
This new version looks fine to me.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
;
* the package will need to go in contrib.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1317395902..870
can then use the upstream pristine
tarball.
With dpkg-source v3 you can also include binaries in the debian/
directory. Just mention them in debian/source/include-binaries.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone
, they should add an option 4: the
GPL.
End of trouble.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304064968.32026.72
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 11:54 -0500, Gabriel Burt a écrit :
Is changing http://www.emusic.com/favicon.ico to a PNG modifying it?
Assume it's not, would we be OK including that image in our Debian
package of Banshee?
No, it would not. This icon is not free, in terms of copyright - and
that’s
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 11:27 +, Noel David Torres Taño a
écrit :
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote:
In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another
program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example
of where it does happen, git is largely
Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
linking to a
Hi, and thanks for the effort of providing the complete information.
Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 09:31 +, Andrew Ross a écrit :
The software itself is the current version of iText, which is licensed
under the AGPL with the following additional term:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the
.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
when there are
traces of nuts in their products. You can’t take the place of such a law
by using your copyright license as a vessel.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg
Le lundi 27 décembre 2010 à 23:22 +, Wols Lists a écrit :
But it shouldn't be too hard, in UK courts at least, to file to have it
dismissed in summary judgement. I don't know about other European
jurisdictions, but we do have case law to back up the European Patent
Treaty ban on software
.
As for the compression algorithms, I can only agree with Julien: we can
only care if the patent is being actively enforced and considered valid.
Otherwise we might as well stop distributing anything.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed
Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 10:36 +0100, Alessandro Rubini a écrit :
http://imgur.com/gFKfs.jpg
Thank you for making this jpeg, it's very clear.
[...]
The comapny Logo was created by photoshop and Logo software, we desgined it
from the stretch. if you have somethins to say, give us
://www.debian.org/logos/openlogo.svg
which, unfortunately, does *not* comply with the DFSG:
http://www.debian.org/logos/#open-use
Note that this is not a regression from lenny, since moreblue-orbit has
the same problem.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because
, he could not.
The constraints for a CDDL’ed OS are the same as for a proprietary one.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description
Le jeudi 26 août 2010 à 23:27 +0200, Gabriel Bouvigne a écrit :
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/115654
Do you agree with this claim?
Without ressorting to any court, I share the opinion that every file
featuring the usual LPGLv2 header is only convered by the
-algorithmic changes.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
whatever you want with this work.
No. You may not, since it only permits use.
As I am not sure, which form of language would be the best to achieve this
goal?
The simplest way to achieve that is probably the WTFPL.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way
or No for the below license?
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`-[…] I will see what I can do
? Should the acknowledgment go into the package
descriptions? In the documentation? On the CD itself?
I’d be more confortable with shipping this in Debian if the clause was
more clear; or at least, if it was asking to refer to the data only in
relevant places.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
it. I agree with your
reasoning and the conclusion this clearly violates DFSG #3.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de
enhancements
or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form.
The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but
otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope
,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
the comments are, so maybe we have to
strip the comments from those files.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message
to alias a font with another one so it’s fine for
those who modify it.
Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be
fine for Debian.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand
emails, please do so in your signature.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
such as those of Voxforge?
A widely-used technique is to cleverly hide some minor bugs in the data.
If a non-free model shows the same bugs, you can prove the data was used
illegally. Of course this only works if you manage to keep the bugs
secret.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
be made” → clearly non-free
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Le mardi 14 avril 2009 à 18:53 +0200, dominik.smat...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Dear legal gurus,
is it possible to publish software under GPL3, if this software is
depending on some GPL2 libraries?
Sorry, I was trying to read GPL3, but my English is not good enough to
figure this out by
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), and which
are implemented in
Le lundi 23 mars 2009 à 17:16 +0100, Cedric Fachinetti a écrit :
* 3.2 - In any copy of the Software or in any
Modification you create, You must retain and
reproduce, any and all copyright, patent, trademark,
and attribution notices
Le mardi 17 mars 2009 à 14:54 +, MJ Ray a écrit :
In general, I'd support this. Further, j...@debian's implementation
included at X.org is not subject to the other holder's copyright, so
I'd report the bogus CC-NC-ND layout claim as a bug to X.org.
Has that happened? This thread hinted
Le mardi 17 mars 2009 à 23:13 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Unless there are copyrightable comments, which can be stripped out, I don't
think there's anything here that we should recognize as covered by copyright
at all. Keep the keyboard mapping we currently have in X if it's useful
Le lundi 16 mars 2009 à 11:18 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without
the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims?
I don’t think so, but maybe an open source evangelist would have better
luck.
Alternatively, can someone generate a
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
No.
Even the FSF considers it free.
--
.''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
Even the FSF considers it free.
The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free...
They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF
argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms as
Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit :
The only
case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
other cases, I would be interested to learn about them.
There’s also the case of MP3
Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 23:19 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors
to call Debian modified versions Alice, as long as renaming it is easy
otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past.
I don't think the
Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 09:25 -0500, Luke Faraone a écrit :
Hi, I'm interested in packaging Alice (RFP:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500648), but it's
license http://www.alice.org/index.php?page=license has naming
restrictions similar to Mozilla.
Would retitling
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture.
No. If you’re the copyright owner, you get to decide what is the
preferred form of
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
will be acceptable for Debian.
Say
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the
GPL point of view.
The relevance comes from the fact that pictures can be their own
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 13:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
* To upload a background source package, is it mandatory to use
an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
E.g. this is bullshit.
More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 00:33 +0100, Cristian Greco a écrit :
1) Is this license really suitable for distribution in main now?
Yes, it’s a BSD license with advertising clause. Theoretically you
cannot link GPL software without exception to it; however the library is
merely using it as
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 14:25 +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Also, I'm disappointed that WTFPLv2 is so long. Why do people need to
care about Sam Hocevar's name, address and permission to change it?
It seems obviously below the creative threshold for copyright...
I'm no longer sure whether
Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 18:28 +0100, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute.
I wonder how we should consider the fact they did not remove nor
rephrase this
Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:59 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
First of all, a no-name-including-this-string clause may well be more
restrictive than default trademark law. A case where this is
particularly apparent is the PHP one: I am not allowed to use any name
including the string PHP
Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature
of the change and the names of those who changed them.
An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable.
The second part of
Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes a écrit :
I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally
couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it
might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK,
to have source code in
Le jeudi 28 août 2008 à 01:22 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
Because it's just not implied, unless you manage to stretch the concepts
enough.
Maybe we need to rephrase DFSG5 as “The license must not discriminate
against any person or group of persons, except those Marco d’Itri
doesn’t care
Le jeudi 21 août 2008 à 11:16 +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit :
Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program
(possibly modified) covered by AGPLv3 that uses some kind of network,
and you cannot convey its source code to the remote people you're
interacting with through that
Le jeudi 31 juillet 2008 à 10:07 +0200, Jens Peter Secher a écrit :
What do you mean by reliability here? From a package-building
perspective, I find it to be more reliable to use the precompiled blop
because then I can make sure that the package compiles in a minimal
environment. Otherwise
Le jeudi 10 juillet 2008 à 15:06 -0500, Richard Laager a écrit :
7. Indemnity. Licensee will, at its own expense, defend any action
brought by a third party against Zend to the extent that such action is
based on a claim arising from or relating to: (a) Licensee's use of the
Software, (ii) any
Le dimanche 29 juin 2008 à 01:53 -0400, Daniel Dickinson a écrit :
totem-xine
vlc
(I think mplayer)
can play DVD's as they are in main
totem-gstreamer can also, but without full menu support.
Of course, you need libdvdcss to be able to read 99% of the DVDs.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are
Le jeudi 05 juin 2008 à 18:02 +0200, Vincent Danjean a écrit :
* LGPL+ssl (LGPL with OpenSSL clause)
There is no need for an OpenSSL exception for a LGPL-licensed work.
What I'm thinking with a program that links with 2 libraries:
NOT valid: progA[GPL]{libssl}
valid:
Le mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 16:12 -0700, Yuhong Bao a écrit :
DFSG is not suitable for, and should not be applied to, things other than
software.
I see dead horses. People beat them. They don’t know they are dead. They
only see what they want to see.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org.
Le samedi 03 mai 2008 à 17:43 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang a écrit :
He thinks that those games should to be put in non-free, unless we can
remove those logos. [2]
It is OK for me to pack a non-free package, but it is hard to find a
sponsor for non-free packages.
The license doesn’t seem to
On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 18:58 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely
useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on
scripts using the language.
Huh? Why can't someone patent langauge grammar/syntax?
I should
On ven, 2008-03-21 at 10:09 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
This clause makes the license a copyleft one. It is free, but this is a
huge restriction compared to the original license. And this turns the
license into yet another copyleft license that will be incompatible with
other ones.
On sam, 2008-03-22 at 22:33 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
Have you considered the GNU LGPL (v2.1)?
Yes, but I encountered strong resistance from FSF when proposing a
lighter (with exceptions) LGPL version.
This is, again, because you are not proposing additional permissions
(for which
On mer, 2008-03-19 at 20:34 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications
and permissions.
This is, well, an interesting claim.
4. *Redistribution of Work and Derivative Works*. You may reproduce
and distribute copies of the
Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
aspiration of what the document ought to say. I have never seen an attempt
to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to debate
Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008 à 23:25 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo a
écrit :
Hi,
I am concerned about the following license snippet, basically point 3
which talk about use of authors' name.
This comes from a source included in conduit (version 0.3.6, not yet
uploaded)
3. The name of the
Le mercredi 16 janvier 2008 à 14:55 +, MJ Ray a écrit :
We have allowed exactly the same conditions by using software with
trademarked names.
Where? The naming rights asserted above seem much broader than what a
trademark allows. Trademarks have many limitations.
If we have named
Le lundi 14 janvier 2008 à 22:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
a. The name of Your Product (or of Your modified version of This
Product)
must not contain the name TrueCrypt (for example, the following names
are
not allowed: TrueCrypt, TrueCrypt+, TrueCrypt Professional,
On sam, 2008-01-12 at 20:27 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The plain text version of the licence may be found at
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/License.txt
and is pasted below in its entirety.
Thanks.
Summary:
* I think this software is fine for main if we package it the
iceweasel
On dim, 2008-01-13 at 14:37 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
| ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7
|
| No trademark or publicity rights are granted. This license does NOT give you
| any right, title or interest in the trademark SimCity or any other
Electronic
| Arts trademark. You may
Le dimanche 30 décembre 2007 à 08:55 +, Sean B. Palmer a écrit :
I'm looking for a permissive license, of the Modified BSD or MIT
variety, but I'd like for the copyright notices in each file to be
protected without having to include the whole license itself, if it's
more than a few lines.
clone 451799 -1
retitle 451799 evince should depend on poppler-data
reassign -1 wnpp
retitle -1 RFP: poppler-data -- Encoding data for the poppler PDF rendering
library
block 451799 by -1
thanks
* Package name: poppler-data
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : Adobe, Red Hat
* URL
Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit :
Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license?
I don't think so.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgment:
This product includes software
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007 à 08:30 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
For all I know he does have a legitimate claim under German law that cdrkit
infringes his Urheberrecht, but cdrkit is not a German product per se.
The German law doesn't give Jörg Schilling more rights than any other
one, and
of the
GPL, the author's rights apply by default, so you don't have the right
to use, distribute or modify the software.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Le jeudi 15 novembre 2007 à 17:04 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
CarMetal uses colorchooser https://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is
CDDL licensed.
If colorchooser has been developed independently from CaRMetal, and only
CaRMetal calls colorchooser, it is indeed similar to what happens
, whether in source form or compiled form.
No, it must be licensed under a GPL-*compatible* license. And the BSD
license is GPL-compatible.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code.
No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
explicitly allows it.
Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case.
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL
library and
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
So make sure that wodim prints something like:
This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original
software
and it mets the rules.
Sorry, but we are not allowed to display false statements like this
Hi,
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 19:27 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit :
(1)
Is it ok to change exim's SSL library to OpenSSL in the current setup
without violating the GPL for some of the library currently in use
As you said, libmysqlclient and exim are OK with linking with OpenSSL.
The one
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license.
Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations.
Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems.
And above all, don't
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:07 -0800, Yuhong Bao a écrit :
That is exactly why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in
current versions of cdrtools. Now the remaining problem is about the
GPLed library that the CDDL mkisofs links to. Removing HFS support
would solve this problem.
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims
in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between
the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work.
Yes,
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work:
- You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL.
You are basing all of your reasoning on the assumption that a program
that uses a
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:46 -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
If you want my services as an English teacher, you'll
have to ask me for a quote; otherwise, finding the errors in your logic is
your problem, not mine.
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 17:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Is this
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
there is a problem in wodim.
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
harm the reputation of the Author.
There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation
of
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 06:15 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit :
Francesco Poli wrote:
... and despite its length, it does not even implement an actually
working copyleft mechanism. :-(
Francesco, that's very surprising. Can you please elaborate, or have you
posted your opinion on
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 01:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
The whole license is CPL-based.
Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
I have
.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting.
However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I
prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was
accepted by Debian.
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
The whole license is CPL-based.
Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 12:06 -0400, Joe Smith a écrit :
I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no
jury for the trial?
All this means is that should a trial arise, neither side will request a
jury to decide
the questions of Fact. If no jury is requested,
Short summary, two potential freeness issues:
* the contributor indemnification clause,
* the patent retaliation clause.
Le vendredi 21 septembre 2007 à 00:03 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
This section is OK.
3. REQUIREMENTS
B. Each Distributor must include
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:49 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of
section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but
to add further
notices.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
, or could go to main?
Section 3 is clearly non-free, so the library itself would have to go to
non-free.
A GPL program can use it, but you need a specific exception allowing
linking with this software from all copyright owners of GPL components.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
packages, the
non-free and the contrib part?
Personally I would upload it entirely to non-free, but such a choice is
the maintainer's to make.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux
in this format, I don't
think that changes much. It would be pretty much like a program
requiring a GPL library to work properly, but that would dlopen() it at
startup.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED
Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the
DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes.
Only you and Anthony Towns believe the changes were not editorial.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
several database formats, and
ship it with a less featured database with a more permissive license.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
1 - 100 of 261 matches
Mail list logo
