On 3 Oct 2006, at 05:13, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently preparing an updated xMule package and found a statement,
which sounds a bit problematic. But I'm not a lawyer, so I ask you. E.g.
xLibs/DynPrefs/DynamicPreferences.cpp states:
// This file is dually licensed under the terms
Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
I've read
the sourceforge's terms of use and got to this paragraph under the
licensing section:
Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is
subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such
subdomain, shall be subject to
Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
That's right, but in this case OSI-approved license applicable to such
Source Code means GPL, AFAIU.
Yes, in this case, the source code is under GPL, but the copyright owner
said nothing about content on webpages.
Of course, they aren't sufficient to grant it.
Stephen Gran wrote:
The DFSG does not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
Are you arguing that you would like Debian to remove every piece of
software that might potentially be covered by a patent in any jurisdiction
Debian distributes software to?
Why we have main/Non-US?
--
Thank Adam for hir detailed explanation.
In fact, other people in this maillist used to give similar opinions,
but not in a so detailed (and clear) way.
I used to give such an assertionany patent, unless it is licensed for
everyone's free use or not licensed at all, is against the DFSG. Now
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why we have main/Non-US?
1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
So we can make use of it. :)
2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, the code was placed
bob marlet wrote:
cannot be sold for profit is ok with non-free?
It's Ok.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Gran wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
opposite of current practice.
I think it's against the
Francesco Poli wrote:
What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be
by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses
that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc?
I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since
there's no way that
Francesco Poli wrote:
While analyzing the license draft, I noted something strange.
The anti-DRM clause quoted by Evan is, substantially, the one found in
clause 4(a):
| You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
| restrict the ability of a recipient of the
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't
Bas Wijnen wrote:
It would be illegal for us
to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know,
and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely
(actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop
distributing when the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour.
IMO, we
Michelle Konzack wrote:
I was thinking to use the term:
Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay
with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
I am thinking, that this makes my standpoint more clear as telling
users: This software is under GPL vXX. I fully
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of
their license suite:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017
Big question
The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
Does the anti-DRM requirement
Hi,
I have read debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses[0]
by Evan Prodromou.
Since Creative Commons 2.5 Licenses have been released, I'd like to
discuss it here based on Evan Prodromou's works.
Here is some of my comments on CC Attribute 2.5. I hope they will be
useful to a
16 matches
Mail list logo
