On Monday 02 June 2003 13:16, Joey Hess wrote:
This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
in rpm 4.2.
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
sounds like a fairly straightforward BSD like license with a little more
Whee! I haven't changed my mind since the Affero discussion. I
personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that deliver
content to anyone other than You is equivalent to distribution of the
software.
I agree strongly; in a networked world all software potentially
According to the DFSG this makes every mp3 decoder non-free or even
undistributable.
It doesn't, actually. Although it might make it non-distributable
under US law, and some other countries which honour the relevant
patents.
As I said above
the decision made several months
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the majority of potential users, and also CD-magazines and
FTP mirrors try to avoid stuff that is not likely to EVER being used
or downloaded.
On Thursday 13 February 2003 07:03, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The Koynacity blue theme (which is part of the spheres-and-crystals
bundle) includes the following statement :
You are fully authorized to use, modify, and redistribute this theme.
If you are planning to make a color variation
On Thursday 06 February 2003 23:55, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Mark Rafn wrote:
It [Perl's copyright holders] can't retroactively change licenses.
There will always be a free Perl.
It is my understanding that licensees (generally) haven't been given any
consideration in exchange for the
On Monday 03 February 2003 11:35, Antoine Mathys wrote:
Hello,
What exactly must be done when trying to package an academic piece of
software, which typically has no copyright but mentions such as :
- The program is provided as is. There is no warranty.
- may be used without
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:13, you wrote:
On Monday 03 February 2003 07:46 pm, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On Monday 03 February 2003 11:35, Antoine Mathys wrote:
- The program is provided as is. There is no warranty.
- may be used without restriction
- available
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:06, Antoine Mathys wrote:
may be used without restriction does not give you the right to
distribute or modify. Use clauses only govern actual use.
I guess the bottom line is this software is probably not to be treated as
free software unless/until the author
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:21, Antoine Mathys wrote:
What IS the real difference between a licence and a copyright?
I am a bit confused at this point, especially because I hear the
copyright is what gives (or doesn't) give you freedom to use, modify,
distribute, etc.
the license is the
On Saturday 18 January 2003 10:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:32:34PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Perhaps not directly. Who knows how many people who would otherwise be
spending time on GPL software will instead be stuck porting
free-but-GPL-incompatible software to
On Thursday 16 January 2003 02:50, Shaul Karl wrote:
Can someone explain what is the problem with the following situation?
In particular, why it is important here to have the OpenSSL layer
relicense under the LGPL?
According to the FSF, linking a GPL library is the equivalent of preparing
On Sunday 10 November 2002 02:25, Andrea Borgia wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
SSPRH can also afford to be sued.
IMHO, you're kidding yourself if you do believe they're consciously trying
to get sued by systematically ignoring licenses. They're a business
On Saturday 09 November 2002 10:05, Andrea Borgia wrote:
I did and I did not, and still do not, understand why, say, RedHat can
distribute pine in binary form and Debian cannot. Or anyone making prebuilt
debs available, for that matter.
RedHat read the license and made the choice to
On Thursday 31 October 2002 09:57, Bennett Todd wrote:
2002-10-28-12:24:21 Alan Shutko:
It seems that this new clause makes the license similar to the GPL.
You can redistribute BDB alone however you want. If you are
redistributing it with an application, the app has to be open
source.
On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:35, Bennett Todd wrote:
2002-10-31-13:18:24 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
You only have to give the source to the recipient of a binary.
That sounds like a nice interpretation, but I don't see that on
their site. I think you're assuming that they want to be open
source
On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:58, Bennett Todd wrote:
2002-10-31-13:53:24 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
right. Now, the GPL *only* applies to the recipient of a binary. If
that binary never leaves my company no one outside my company has the
right to the source code.
But, if I'm obliged
On Monday 28 October 2002 07:03, Bennett Todd wrote:
The term redistribution in the Berkeley DB public license means
your application is distributed to more than a single physical
location. Installing copies of an application at different
physical locations, whether they are
On Monday 28 October 2002 09:24, Alan Shutko wrote:
Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the DFSG demands that the license must allow free redistribution
and use, ignorant of any specific circumstances. That's imho
covered by clause 6 of the rules.
It seems that this new clause makes
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 08:30, Henning Makholm wrote:
I somehow seem to have received this on debian-legal though the list
is not in the To or Cc lines. Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] forward to
debian-legal, or was it just Bcc'ed to -legal?
dunno, i replied to this message myself a day or two
On Tuesday 03 September 2002 06:29, Oliver Kurth wrote:
Hello!
I would like to package dumpasn1 for Debian, dowloaded from
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/. It has no license, except
for this sentence in the source:
--*snip*--
You can use this code in whatever way you want, as long
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 12:17, Joey Hess wrote:
So, they took the DES code from the ssh 1.2.26 source code (note that
that version of ssh was non-free as a whole; openbsd chose an earlier
version to fork). They rewrote it in java, but it is still presumably a
derivative work.
I think
To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between
having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL binary
on a closed source system? It is permissible for libc to be non-free and a
program to use it. The closed system's kernel is for all intents
On 08-Jun-2002 Oohara Yuuma wrote:
[Please Cc: to me because I am not subscribed to the list.]
I took over the upstream of xsoldier (I am not the original author,
so I don't have the copyright). It was under GPL version 2
or later. Can I put it under GPL exactly version 2, that is,
On 14-May-2002 Santiago Vila wrote:
Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
Operating System (Apple OS-Developed Software), including but not
limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and
backends for an Apple Operating System, that
Yes. However, it is not necessary to act in panic; there should be
time to ask the translator to remove his constraint instead.
and if this is truly the translator's license and not the original author's
someone else can always translate the work ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 22-Apr-2002 Mikael Hedin wrote:
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
and if this is truly the translator's license and not the original
author's
someone else can always translate the work ...
Do we have a volunteer?-)
sorry, I do not grok Swedish. But we do have plenty of devels
On 27-Mar-2002 Ben Pfaff wrote:
I'm thinking about packaging the Java-based Open Card Framework
for use in accessing smart cards. It's freely available from
www.opencard.org. I'm using it with a Java-based iButton
(www.ibutton.org). The license is enclosed below, unchanged
except for
Surely you have to explicitly say that you're applying the OPL's options
before anybody needs to worry about them? The OPL says:
The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document
may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or
copy of the
On 24-Dec-2001 Erich Schubert wrote:
Please CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; i'm not subscribed to the legal list!
I'd like to package this game, but i fear that there are copyright
problems, as it's very similar to a board game (RoboRally) from 1994.
Updated with expansion sets in the following
On 11-Dec-2001 David Coe wrote:
Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright
(compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute).
This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that
must to a should, would it then be DFSG-compliant? If not, what
On 13-Oct-2001 Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 02:23:54PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
The problem is that it is hard to associate a name to a font. In Debian we
have the copyright file, but elsewhere there is no such requirement. This
is
why digital artworks often
On 12-Oct-2001 Erich Schubert wrote:
Please CC: me on replys, i'm not subscribed to the list.
I asked the author of some Freeware fonts, if he could licence them
under an open source licence.
This is his reply, please check the Licence below, if this classifies
them open source for Debian.
The main fear with artists is that they won't be given credit for their
work, i think.
I'm not sure that being free or not will make any difference. Virtually
every free license demands credit, at least in fact that your name may
not be removed.
Third, his additions did not fit to my
The remainder of the source (not already public domain, no explicit
author's copyright notice) is Copyright 1995-97 by Harald
Deischinger.
The source code may be copied freely and may be used in other
I think this may remain? While this has to be changed:
yes public domain
Cthugha is (still) a non-free package, that i maintain for Debian and
want to become the upstream maintainer also, as the oriinal author is
not going to develop it any further. I mailed him in february this year
and last 5 minutes ago to convince him to provide a last archive with
I'm inclined to say that we need explicit permission to modify and to
distribute modified versions. Apart from that, though, what do you think
about the last clause? Is it equivalent to ... must reproduce the above
copyright notice ... in the documentation and/or other materials
provided
On 01-May-2001 Branden Robinson wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,43470,00.html
There is not a decision yet, but it's looking grim.
The U.S. 2nd Circuit court of appeals looks disinclined to regard compiled
code as speech. They also seem to feel that fair use does not
Could you please comment on this, or point me to other locations
where I could ask?
You can find a copy of the original license at
http://www.copyleft.de/pub/author/fabian/debian/prag/Copyright
sounds like yet another BSD license (tm).
The wording on the first item:
1) Source code for
basically what this says is: if you write code on company time, they own it not
you. They get copyright. So if you write a new program, you have to have your
boss' (or someone higher) to GPL, BSD, or otherwise license it because it is
NOT yours.
So, if you write code for the FSF, they require
Therefore I'm going to package Python 2.0 in a way that it can be installed
parallel to the old Python 1.5.2 packages. The Python 2.0 packages won't
include Readline support though (as well as other things that are covered by
the GPL).
seeing how 2.0 does break some python, and will
seeing how 2.0 does break some python, and will continue to do so in the
future, it makes sense to support either version of python. Some python C
modules may not compile etc.
From what I've heard, it's not that bad generally. Do you have specific
examples of things that break ?
You can license your code under BSD, but the app will be GPL until you
replace it with BSD.
thank you for clearing this up
Remember, however, that the only freedom BSD permits which GPL does not
is the freedom for the app to become proprietary. [But I do understand
that this leads into
If I write a program that links to a GPL'ed library, what licenses may I use?
Am I stuck with the GPL?
On 08-May-2000 Mark Brown wrote:
ChkTeX is in non-free, but AFAICT from the license it's just GPL
together with a non-binding request for dontations to the author.
If the request were binding it would be a different matter, but as
it stands it seems that the license is OK for main.
Am I
On 04-Mar-2000 Tommi Virtanen wrote:
Hi. I suck at legalese, even with my native language
and local laws. This is not free in any case, but can
it be included in non-free? Please Cc: me, I'm not
subscribed.
this seems like the standard free for non commercial use
I'd like to upgrade jcode.pl in fml, requesting to upstream author of fml
and closes Bug#52108 (and maybe Bug#52109, both are release critical).
Is there any problem?
there are 3 copies of jcode.pl in Debian, one in fml, one in another package,
and finally and actual libjcode-perl
On 09-Dec-1999 Masayuki Hatta wrote:
Hi,
Now I'm talking with the author of jcode.pl(libjcode-perl, currently in
non-free) about changing its license. Recently he gave me the draft of new
license for it. It goes like:
;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as
So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by:
A: Downloading Corel Linux
B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and
C: Replacing them.
then...
D: Publicizing this heavily.
See stormix.com and several others. Stormix has stated they are interested in
On 21-Sep-99 Craig Brozefsky wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I concur. The license should stipulate something like this: If you modify
the program, you must change its name and indicate clearly that it's not
the official version of Sean Perry, and you must give an explanation of
where on
Hi, below is a mail from an upstream regarding portsentry. This package
currently has a non-free license. http://www.psionic.com/abacus/portsentry/ is
its home page.
The license currently has two faults:
a) you must ask his permission to modify the code
b) portsentry may not be sold along w/
Perhaps the person from Debian who is responsible for
this decision can write me so we can chat?
He is referring to me here. I refused to help the maintainer unless it was
free software. So he started mailing the upstream.
52 matches
Mail list logo
