Tom Callaway dixit:
>On 10/26/2018 11:32 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> So if it's not as free everywhere as it would be in Debian,
>> it's not free enough for Debian.
>
>It has never happened that I know of, but if there were a copyright
>license which was somehow okay only in Fedora (but not for
Hi Ben
>So it's essential to know what is the specific *grant of license* from
>the copyright holder to recipients of the work.
I posted you the specific grant in my previous eMail,
did you not see it?
>>>Where is the text granting specific license in that work?
>>
>>
>>
>>So, as I said, pretty
Hi Ben,
>> Please keep me in Cc as I’m not subscribed to the list.
>
>Done, but if you want to continue this discussion please do subscribe so
>you don't miss messages.
meh. I can always check the web archives if someone misses this.
>> I don’t think this has been covered yet, and, while I
Hi,
I don’t think this has been covered yet, and, while I don’t have
immediate need for this, it awoke my curiosity.
From https://github.com/w3c/musicxml/issues/114 I see that the
latest version of the MusicXML standard is published under the
W3C FSA:
“The FSA Deed is available at:
Ángel González dixit:
On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP
- but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a product derived
from PHP but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
The actual PHP
Ángel González dixit:
Please remember that we are just talking about changes that Debian
itself may want to perform (so it doesn't require a renaming which
would be bad both for PHP and Debian users).
Right, but Debian probably (though it’s up to Ondřej Surý, the
maintainer; there is no
Pierre Joye wrote:
As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes
*all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the
issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal
wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed
for PHP itself, and is used for random software written in PHP.
Hi everyone,
is there any example language for something like the following
around already, which I could reuse?
“This software Y is based on the software X, which was written
by the company Z; both X and Z are trademarks, but Y is not,
nor do we intend to use these trademarks (which is why we
On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote:
2014-05-07 14:37 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org:
Which you may want to do, in order to patch a security issue
you just found, locally, before filing it upstream.
In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use
with software. (Also, Public
FWIW, the GMane thread view for the Debian bug on this is:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general/1099104
The bugreport is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728716
although I’d have put it into the ITP bug #721447 instead.
Elmar Stellnberger dixit:
What
Elmar Stellnberger dixit:
Yes, they are and the license does currently not give any restriction about
them
Except for forbidding them all, because patches must be distributed
separately, and distributing patched versions is forbidden.
However it is not an OSD criterium
Independent on
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
This license will be considered non-free in Debian.
ACK.
We have a thread about this on the OSI mailing list as well:
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/thread.html
starting at
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into
a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK.
Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the
input for the declarative dh*
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are
you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply
to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that
Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you
Clark C. Evans cce at clarkevans.com writes:
Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
Not only that, but he
Paul Wise pabs at debian.org writes:
Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have
displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind
Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not
holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing.
I’ve heard that
MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop writes:
Well, we hear things like that every time someone doesn't agree about
In this case I talked with other DDs on IRC.
whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers
seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote
MJ Ray writes:
Look, […]
My reply was specifically to this newsgroup,
a long-needed “request” to shut up, and explicitly *not*
soliciting *your* personal(!) opinion on those licences
either. I do not require the “added value”, and this
newsgroup is spammed enough by the likes of you two.
Francesco Poli invernomuto at paranoici.org writes:
In the recent discussions, the main concerns were about the switch of a
Yes, I know, but the discussion was raised, so I wanted to make sure.
So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main?
For the record, I personally disagree with their
Hi,
there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due
to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB.
I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at
least two points:
• The inability to provide security support for AGPL software
(embargoed fixes)/
• The
22 matches
Mail list logo
