Re: Legal question to a file from Dr. Dobb's

On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:51:52 +0200 Jan Luca Naumann wrote: > Hey, > > I want to package the tool sedutil > (https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil). > > When writing the debian/copyright file I found a possible file that > could be problematic to be used

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:58:24 +0100 Sven Bartscher <sven.bartsc...@weltraumschlangen.de> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:22:09 +1100 > Riley Baird <bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> wrote: > > > > I think this isn't sufficient to

Re: Missing license text in upstream packages

> I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is this > right? It's impossible to tell if we can't see the package ourselves. pgpyHMRf6zWY6.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0100 (CET) Thorsten Alteholz <alteh...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: > > >> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > >> clarify their Copyright. > >

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

What enforcement actions can you possibly see arising from this? On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:16:43 -0500 Tony Rutkowski <t...@yaanatech.co.uk> wrote: > So who bears the exposure to litigation or > enforcement actions? > -tony > > On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: >

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

> > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in > > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. > > > Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > clarify their Copyright. I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

> One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under > the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3. I think that you're misinterpreting DFSG §3. A user needs the right to distribute the work such that the people

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

> >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new > >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. > >> > >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that > >> the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant. That licence is fine.

Re: libfcgi-perl copyright issue

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:54:07 -0500 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > That should read, of course, defendants. > > On 2016-03-09 10:53 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote: > > So in a cause of action against Debian for > > infringement, who are the plaintiffs? > Depends. But we're concerned

Re: Code in lwIPv6 library under advertising requirement

> * Gregory M. Christy grants license under equivalent of BSD 4-clause > with advertising requirement. This Gregory Christy looks promising: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregory-christy-5b08a134 > * The Australian National University grants license under equivalent > of BSD

Re: "Personal" term in Apple license

> When writing the file, a line caught my attention, because it mentions > that the license is "personal" and "non-exclusive": > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-osg/pkg-osg.git/tree/debian/copyright?h=debian-osg-3.2=0e3adbf30d2b1b02710513ac22c9711f5e9d8cad#n417 This isn't a problem, since

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

> > For one thing, there is the problem of license proliferation. > > Yes that is certainly a problem; though there are some attempts to > mitigate these issues: > * it can be used together with any other OSS compatible license. For copyleft licenses, it can't, because those licenses would also

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

y enforce the license. If you don't plan on enforcing it, then it is worthless. Before you do get legal advice, however, there are some DFSG problems with this license. If you're still interested in making this license, let me know and I'll tell you the ones that I've found. Good luck, Riley Bair

Re: Are these copyright notices compatible with GPLv2+?

> > //3. Users agree to obey all government restrictions governing > > //redistribution or export of the software. > > This is an additional restriction on top of what is allowed by GPLv2+. > That, unfortunately, makes it incompatible. That sounds sensible, but are you sure?. Red Hat includes

Bug#805762: armory: Click-wrap dialogue appears on first use of package

Package: armory Version: 0.92.3-1+b1 Severity: normal Upon starting armory from the CLI, I get a notice which requires me to tick a box saying "I agree to all the terms of the license above" before I can use the software. This is annoying, because a wonderful part of using Debian is not having to

Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:58:49 +0530 Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hi, > > If I was to make a tool for general purpose, to help others, and ensure > freedom is guaranteed, I'd go with [A]GPL. If I want to make a > commercial product, I would go and opt for a proprietary license. >

Re: Source files

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:06:25 +0100 Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:52 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > [...] > > But even if the person who wrote a program wrote it in such a way that > > it was unreasonably difficult to

Re: Source files

> > Being insecure shouldn't be a reason for a program to be declared > > non-free, but being unreasonably difficult to understand should be. > > Not if the program is difficult to understand even for its > maintainers... A program will never be *unreasonably* difficult to understand for its

Re: Source files

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200 Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > [...] > > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore. > > I don't think so. Why not? "The pref

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:23:50 -0200 Eriberto Mota wrote: > Hi guys, > > I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree). > > When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full > revision in source code and I found two doubtful

Re: Source files

> > > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of > > > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making > > > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual > > > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the > > > existing

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:05:39 +1100 Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Riley Baird <bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> > writes: > > > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too. > > We can intuitively sta

Re: Source files

> What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > source and what not This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move on. I can think of several ideas: 1. Source code must

Re: Source files

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: > > > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a > > > source and what not > > &

Re: Source files

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:26:47 +1100 Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Riley Baird <bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> > writes: > > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200 > > Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wro

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

> IMHO it is a DFSG-compatible license because added clause is not a > restriction for field of endeavour but a termination clause similar to GPL > ones except that is is explicitly added to the license in order to blacklist > a known offender. Are you sure that Adarsh Mehta is a known

Re: DFSG status of petsc

> But do we need to be pedantic about upstream pdf files? > > Our petsc distribution would be in principle be improved if we were to > include the pdf manuals. Yeah, I completely understand. Especially seeing as we now have things like libreoffice-pdfimport. But the FTP masters have specifically

Re: How to free US governmental code

In one of the packages I am currently working on (idlastro [1]), some files have the following license [2]: | Copyright 1992, The Regents of the University of California. This | software was produced under U.S. Government contract (W-7405-ENG-36) | by Los Alamos National Laboratory, which

Re: Licensing questions regarding distribution of the raspberry pi platform bundled with proprietary software

I am creating a video streaming platform using the Raspberry Pi. I have wrote software that captures video and streams it to a server using OpenCV. The client then can monitor the video feed using a computer, or smartphone. OpenCV uses the FreeBSD license, and my code is running on Raspbian, a

Re: DFSG-ness of two

Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow this option. I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream list

Re: GPL + question

On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote: 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

Re: GPL + question

I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to someone else, I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the copyright owner. That's what I meant; I probably didn't word it clearly, though. pgp4w78cg1zYD.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: DFSG-ness of two

- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell

Re: DFSG-ness of two

- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. The two sentences can not be dissociated:

Re: GPL + question

I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel Bertin) and released in

Re: GPL + question

I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel Bertin) and released

Re: GPL + question

If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the

Re: DFSG-ness of two

On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product

Re: GPL + question

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 would enforce the second license?

Re: DFSG-ness of two

- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You -use this product in a comercial package, the source may -not be charged seperatly. This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be

Re: License requiring US export law compliance

Given that the license restricts redistribution, does it prohibit packaging gpuocelot even in non-free? If so, what is the correct way to record that in the gpuocelot RFP [1] (a wontfix tag?). Yes, Debian cannot distribut it in non-free or elsewhere. I remember reading somewhere that

Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:07:14 +0100 Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote: On 14/04/15 19:25, Anton Gladky wrote: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a [...] revocable, [...] license As far as I can see, ST can revoke this license at any time, i.e. they can say no, we don't want to allow

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

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:20:34 +0200 Alessandro Rubini rub...@arcana.linux.it wrote: [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to

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

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat

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

No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which

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

They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some

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

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:04:36 +0100 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? The DD

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

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 work as a whole be distributed as,

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

://github.com/operatornormal/classified_ads/ and the Nokia-licensed files are here: https://github.com/operatornormal/classified_ads/tree/master/textedit Yours thankfully, Riley Baird pgplDAUTF5zTV.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0

There are many quotes/paragraphs from famous people on wikiquote.org, and I'd like to cherry-pick some of those content (they are distributed under CC-BY SA 3.0) into the package I am maintaining. At first I thought ignoring the license issue is ok, as the content I chose is *definitely*

Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:37:20 + lumin cdlumin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 17:27 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: If you're cherry-picking, I'd say that it would probably be fine. Copying full pages, probably not. If you tell us what package it is, it might give us a better

Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0

* Copyright law may categorically exclude the work. This is often the case if the work was produced by the USA government, but not always. Kind of unrelated, but I just thought that I should point out that this is only the case for Americans. The USA government claims copyright on their

Re: Some questions about trademark, copyright and dfsg

text endorsement? Finally, some notes: -People on debian-legal do not have the power to change the DFSG. Such a change would require a constitutional amendment. -You can still get a package into non-free even if it doesn't meet the DFSG -Good luck with your project Riley Baird pgp8nTV3L_fC3.pgp

Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:18:46 -0800 Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Ian Jackson wrote: Don Armstrong writes (Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches): There's no real difference between a message with a disclaimer, and one without. I think this depends on the

Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches

Generally, this would be a problem. You should ask the person to explicitly state that the disclaimer does not apply. On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:18:35 +0100 Christoph Biedl debian.a...@manchmal.in-ulm.de wrote: Hello, every now and then I receive submissions (i.e. patches) by e-mail for packages

Re: e2ps missing license

On 06/02/15 03:30, Eriberto wrote: IMHO you can use GPL-2, considering 1999-2002 (or nearly) as upstream date. Also, if no version of the GPL is specified, you are free to choose any version. From section 9 of the GPL-2: If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may

Re: e2ps missing license

On 06/02/15 01:26, Paul Wise wrote: The other README files also mention the GPL but I can't read Japanese: I can read Japanese, and it doesn't specify a version. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Makefile.in.in relicensing permission

OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. For the sake of Debian, would you be willing to relicense (or dual license) this file under the above license? Yours thankfully, Riley Baird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Re: Status of CC by-SA v2.5

Can I claim to be using it under v3.0 and include it in a Debian package without conflict? Yes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Makefile.in.in license

that the actual code is *not* freely available. I found this license while I was writing the d/copyright for the granule package[1], but it's also in the gtk+2.0 package[2]. Yours thankfully, Riley Baird [1] http://sources.debian.net/src/granule/1.4.0-7-2/po/Makefile.in.in/ [2] http

Re: Makefile.in.in license

a quick search trough the other source packages in Debian shows that this file is present in many of them. http://codesearch.debian.net/results/file%20file%20be%20copied/ Therefore, empirically it is DFSG-free. My impression about this license is that it might be intended as a joke.

Re: Freeness of code automatically generated from RFCs?

On 25/01/15 15:36, Michael Gilbert wrote: Hi, 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]. There is a tool (tools/make_unicode) that among other things downloads the

Re: Freeness of code automatically generated from RFCs?

On 25/01/15 15:54, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote: Hi, 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]. There is a tool

Re: Python GPL-3+ program w/o OpenSSL exception using python-requests

My conclusion is that if you have a GPL program importing the ssl module, you can ignore the licensing issue on either the ground that nobody really cares or the fact that OpenSSL should be considered as a system library (and this is easier with GPLv3 than it was with GPLv2). You might be

Re: Python GPL-3+ program w/o OpenSSL exception using python-requests

On 19/01/15 01:22, W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2015-01-18 12:23, W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2015-01-18 12:16, W. Martin Borgert wrote: Upstream has been contacted. So far they seem to think, that this is a Debian internal issue and don't want to add anything to their license (GPL-3+). I'll

Re: Python GPL-3+ program w/o OpenSSL exception using python-requests

On 18/01/15 05:14, W. Martin Borgert wrote: Hi, sorry, if this question has been discussed before. So far, I could not find a conclusive answer. Please Cc me. Python program or library X is licensed under GPL3+ without OpenSSL exception. X does use the python-requests library, which on

Re: Python GPL-3+ program w/o OpenSSL exception using python-requests

On 18/01/15 09:34, W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2015-01-18 07:39, Riley Baird wrote: If you could make a version of python-requests with the OpenSSL parts removed, then yes. Otherwise, no. If one imports requests from Debian, OpenSSL is used. No idea how to prevent

fbpdf license doubt

Hi, There has been some discussion on the debian-mentors list about copyright and we'd like to get advice from debian-legal. The original message (not written by me) is below. Yours thankfully, Riley Baird Hello! I personally use fbpdf pdf-viewer. I packaged it for myself, but I have

Re: Bug#773632: RFS: pcsx2/1.2.1-783-g1f54bb7+dfsg-1 [ITP]

* There's a newer upstream version The package contains the HEAD of the master branch from a few hours ago since upstream just committed some new changes. There is technically no newer version. What upstream branched/tagged as 1.2.2 is 1.2.1 + a cherry pick of 1 commit but due to the

Re: Bonanza license

There is no restriction on the distribution of the software, so it can go in non-free. On 21/11/14 09:42, Yann Dirson wrote: The license for Bonanza (top-level shogi computer player) is clearly non-free because of the non-commercial clause. Aside from that, my interpretation is this could be

Re: License of binary packages

On 14/11/14 19:19, Ole Streicher wrote: Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes: I am not aware of any update on the matter: I suppose the determination of the effective licenses of binary packages is still something to be done manually. I hope this answers Ole's question, although

Re: License of binary packages

How is the license of a binary Debian package determined? The file debian/copyright only contains the license of the sources; however the binary license may differ -- f.e. when a BSD source is linked to a GPL library. Also there is usually more than one license used in the sources. I'd say

Re: License of binary packages

however the binary license may differ -- f.e. when a BSD source is linked to a GPL library. Also there is usually more than one license used in the sources. Right, so the source package should have a ‘debian/copyright’ which specifies copyright information for all binary packages generated

Re: YaBB Public License

On 12/11/14 17:13, Riley Baird wrote: You're welcome and good luck with your persuading effort! I've brought up the topic here: http://www.yabbforum.com/cgi-bin/community/YaBB.pl?num=1415772639/0 We'll see how the topic goes. Success! YaBB says that they're going to change the license

Re: YaBB Public License

You're welcome and good luck with your persuading effort! I've brought up the topic here: http://www.yabbforum.com/cgi-bin/community/YaBB.pl?num=1415772639/0 We'll see how the topic goes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe.

Re: Scope of Creative Commons ShareAlike licensing for game assets

It would likely cost a few thousands of dollars to purchase a better license for the music, so that's the reason for the license. I sincerely doubt that a game must necessarily be considered an adaption of its background music – since usually, game and music are very loosely coupled and

YaBB Public License

that I haven't missed any? You can find an unmodified copy of the license in the following link, but you'll need to save it as a html file: http://sourceforge.net/p/yabb/svn/HEAD/tree/trunk/cgi-bin/yabb2/license.txt Thanks, Riley Baird License - YaBB Public License (YPL) Below is the license

Re: Question about Facebook's Osquery: Additional Grant of Patent Rights

On 30/10/14 08:13, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Hi, Facebook has published what seems a nice piece of code called osquery under a BSD3 license [1] [2] [3]. I was surprised by an Additional Grant of Patent Rights document that says the following [4]: Additional Grant of Patent Rights Software

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

But Fedora, whose policies Richard Fontana helped to shape over the years, considers OpenSSL to be a library covered by the system library exception. Afaict, Fedora does not consider every package that they offer to be part of the operating system, whereas Debian does. In practice, the FSF

Re: jmapviewer: bing logo

On 16/10/14 20:40, Andrew Shadura wrote: Hello Ian, On 16 October 2014 01:56, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Another possibility would be to have the program download the logo itself from the Bing website somewhere, along with the Bing map data, when the Bing option is

Re: jmapviewer: bing logo

we are discussing whether or not the bing logo image [1] should be shipped with the jmapviewer package in main. I as the package author originally thought that we should not advertise bing, but Sebastiaan from debian-gis argues that we violated MS terms of use by not including it (please

Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright

Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable — In addition to what Ian said, Debian already accepts Public Domain software, even though public

BSD advertising clause and selling pre-installed Debian

- and advertise - Debian systems, so there must be an easier way. Thanks! Riley Baird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/542c7b54.9090...@bitmessage.ch

Re: Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

On 15/09/14 06:55, Vinay Sajip at Red Dove wrote: 3. The Python standard library logging module is covered by the Python license, so I don't believe it needs relicensing. As far as I can tell, the Python standard library logging module is covered by the Python license *and* the Vinay Sajip

Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright

I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0 URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO. If they really want public domain,

Re: Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

On 06/09/14 11:34, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:18 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: Paul pleasr open a bug under lintian. Will a source duplicate pedantic level I'm not sure there are enough copies to warrant this. There are many other licenses that are copies of Vinay's, just

Re: Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

On 07/09/14 14:51, Johannes Schauer wrote: Hi, Quoting Riley Baird (2014-09-07 05:39:02) On 06/09/14 11:34, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:18 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: Paul pleasr open a bug under lintian. Will a source duplicate pedantic level I'm not sure

Re: Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

1. I don't believe dictconfig is shipped separately - it's part of logutils. Okay, thanks, I didn't realise that. 2. Since 0.3.3, logutils uses what I believe is a standard 3-clause BSD - see the LICENSE.txt [1]. That's good. The package maintainers will just need to update to use the new

Re: openjdk-8 upstream limits source distribution?

This is an odd statement for GPLv2 code: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk8/ : International Use Restrictions Due to limited intellectual property protection and enforcement in certain countries, the JDK source code may only be distributed to an authorized list of countries. You will

Re: Freelancer Online Marketing

On 31/08/14 16:56, felipe kazancakis wrote: has anyone else received the below email, too? this seems to be a spammer advertising his/her own services. please remove from the list. To report an item as spam, you can go onto the webpage of the post (in this case:

Re: apache2 and gpl2+

As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2 but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it into a GPL3 project with Apache2 code which should be

Re: Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

I'm from Debian GNU/Linux. On our legal mailing list, we've been having concerns about the license that you put most of your software under. Essentially, we think that when you say the name of Vinay Sajip not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software

Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

Afaict, the only Vinay Sajip-licensed code that Debian uses is the Python logging module. Before I send a response to Vinay, can anyone confirm that we don't use any more of his stuff? http://codesearch.debian.net/search?prev=q=the+name+of+Vinay+Sajip -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

On 29/08/14 07:05, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Riley Baird wrote: Afaict, the only Vinay Sajip-licensed code that Debian uses is the Python logging module. Before I send a response to Vinay, can anyone confirm that we don't use any more of his stuff? http

Debian and the Vinay Sajip License

to be free? From the way your license is written, I think that the 3-clause BSD license would be what you want. Yours thankfully, Riley Baird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https

Re: Question about a custom license from dictconfig

Also, how does not allowing the usage of a name in advertising make it non-DFSG free? Discrimination against named persons fails DFSG 5 for sure, doesn't it? It might also fail 1 or 3 because it seems like the reverse of licences that REQUIRE authors to disclose their names, which I think

Re: Question about a custom license from dictconfig

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it's OK for other people also called Vinay Sajip to release changes under their own name. Anyone know? If not, then it fails DFSG. Here is the problematic text: the name of Vinay Sajip not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

On 11/08/14 12:14, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? It's really a matter of semantics, but I would argue that since being able

SFLC Letter about PHP License

If no-one has any more concerns about the letter, should it be sent off now? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e930ee.2090...@bitmessage.ch

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

The question is, in this case, can I choose a license to be MIT or the and word glues these two licenses together ? Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. --

  1   2   >