Hello debian-legal,
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from
(eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-masters.
In the end, I'm repackaging
On 12/20/08, Pietro Battiston too...@email.it wrote:
Hello debian-legal,
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from
(eventual)
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pietro Battiston wrote:
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response
from (eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-masters.
Il giorno sab, 20/12/2008 alle 00.22 -0800, Don Armstrong ha scritto:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pietro Battiston wrote:
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but
Hi Pietro,
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:32:32AM +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote:
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from
(eventual)
Il giorno sab, 20/12/2008 alle 08.50 -0800, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
Hi Pietro,
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:32:32AM +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote:
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
[...]
Could you confirm this license is OK with debian?
[1]:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:29:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
One thing that was not yet pointed out is that this license, besides
the other issues, also has a choice of venue clause. This means
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
All disputes
relating to this Agreement are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts of Essen, Germany and you expressly consent to the
exercise of personal jurisdiction in the courts of Essen, Germany in
connection with any
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
All disputes relating to this Agreement are subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Essen, Germany and you
expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the
Hello,
I'm working on the teamspeak client packaging and I would like you to review
the license:
http://www.goteamspeak.com/index.php?page=downloadsid=1a
Please notice Teamspeak has given Debian the right to distribute it, however
they don't want to update the EULA now because it needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why they offered me to send me an official e-mail which summarize the
authorization they gave us.
Is it enough for ftp-masters ?
I am not a ftpmaster, but this has been routinely accepted in the past.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Adam Cecile (Le_Vert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I'm working on the teamspeak client packaging and I would like you
to review the license:
http://www.goteamspeak.com/index.php?page=downloadsid=1a
To aid discussion and future reference, it's convention on this list
to post the text of
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam Cecile (Le_Vert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm working on the teamspeak client packaging and I would like you
to review the license:
http://www.goteamspeak.com/index.php?page=downloadsid=1a
To aid discussion and future reference, it's convention
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is this
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is this considered serious enough to warrant a new .orig
tarball? I do not expect a
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Package: python
Severity: serious
The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
DFSG #3 (and also is just
doko wrote:
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Howeer, /usr/share/doc/python2.4/copyright does not include this
license. In fact, almost none of the licenses at
http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node822.html are included. At
least
Package: python
Severity: serious
The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
DFSG #3 (and also is just stupid). This bug affects likely every version
of Python in Debian (and that ever was in
So can you say why
it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's?
Nobody is going to say that, because we think it's a problem with all those
licenses.
It was a problem with Apache's license. It was not noticed for a long time.
Eventually it was noticed, and it was *fixed*
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:15:50AM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license.
As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used
by software distributed as a part of
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug.
AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the
forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this
is what IMO the license never intended
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Xdebug.
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
It could very well be a derivative; a manual
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries,
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Xdebug.
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
It
Scripsit Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream
versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the
Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a
new upstream
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
me Universal Commercial Code
s/Universal/Uniform/ (whoops)
This and other Model Acts, on which a lot of state laws in the US are
based, may be found at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc.htm .
Cheers,
- Michael
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug
An idea parallel to fair use is present in the Berne Convention,
under the name fair practice:
Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work
which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided
that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt):
4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor
may PHP appear
Those debian people should really think of getting more software
engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the
distro more.
And their absurd abusive semantics of the word free is also
irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more non-free than GPL or
Artistic?
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
names is not.
First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
permitting rather
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against those
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software. [..]
=
I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't think this
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely
Derick -
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:49PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Find something that allows me to exclude people from using Xdebug+ or
RealXdebug for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
The source is
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Package: php4-xdbg
Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts. It provides various debug
information about your script...
[further description]
.
The upstream
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software. [..]
=
I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't
Hi.
I've been referred to xdebug on #postgresql @ freenode, but I will try
to avoid it because:
(1) It's not in Debian
(2) The license is non-free
Although the license is non-free as in annoying more then in
philosophical,
(3) It's not even in the Debian's non-free section
AFAICT, the only
L.S.,
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without prior written permission from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without prior written permission from
[EMAIL
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:27:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
names is not.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00023.html for a
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in
Package: apt-howto
Version: 1.7.7-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
The Debian documentation policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy) reads:
| All manuals of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) will be released
| under DFSG-compliant licenses
On the other hand the APT HOWTO
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the
Hi,
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
As of this license, modification is not allowed. How is modification
to be interpreted. Can, for example, .dekstop files be modified? What
SKYPE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
This End User License Agreement (Agreement) constitutes a valid and
binding agreement between Skype Software S.A. (Skype) and you
(you, or your) for the use of the Skype Software, Network and
Services, as those terms are defined
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the conditions
| that you (i) do not
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:20:54PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring hammering their web server?
I don't think it's practical to
* Øystein Gisnås:
I'm not sure what you refer to as notification, but if it's writing an
email to them, that shouldn't be a problem since contacting the author
is part of the packaging process in any case.
Each mirror admin would have to contact them individually because most
mirrors are not
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
The Skype Software and the Services are not intended for use by or
availability to persons under the age limit of any jurisdiction
which restricts the use of Internet-based applications and services
according to age. IF YOU RESIDE IN SUCH A
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:40PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring
Package: kernel-source-2.4.25
Version: 2.4.25-1
Severity: serious
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
/*
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
/*
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply
My points of concern are:
This Agreement, dated , is entered into by Mentec
Inc., a Massachusetts Company, located at 55 Technology Drive, Lowell,
MA 01851, U.S.A. (MENTEC), and
_ having a residence at
Good points -- I'll fill a bug against ftp.debian.org to remove the
package.
Thanks!
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
http://b9.com/debian.html | : :' : The universal
GPG signed and encrypted| `. `' Operating System
messages accepted.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:11:06AM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Good points -- I'll fill a bug against ftp.debian.org to remove the
package.
Probably it could be converted in an installer.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Hello Debian Legal Guys,
I've recently adopted a non-free package (simh-rsts-images). During
the process of renaming the package, an ftpmaster has concerns that
the license perhaps prevents even inclusion in the non-free archive.
I've included the license below. The point of concerns are:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:55:59PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
yes public domain essentially gives all possible rights with no
restrictions.
I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
attach a
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
attach a no-warranty statement to it.
I'm no lawyer and had not contact to US or british ones. But it would
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 04:52:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
attach a no-warranty statement to it.
US Geological Survey seems to have no problem
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
attach a no-warranty statement to it.
It may mean (no: it does mean) that you cannot force other people to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:31:25PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
So the situation would be something like:
1. A writes software, contributes it to the public domain and
distributes it with a warranty disclaimer.
2. B downloads software from A's site, strips off the warranty
Me wrote:
provide a last archive with another license. My question is: what
keeps cthugha from being free?
Thank you for your reply (and getting it from the archive and
going through it). You nearly answered the q. that i had on mind:
What is the quickest, most painless way (for him) to get
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
(i'm not subscribed to this list, please Cc me on replies)
Hello, wishing a nice day!
I'm quite new to Debian development and don't know much about the
workings of this list. But i have some questions at least ;)
Cthugha is (still) a non-free package, that i maintain for Debian and
want to
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
Hi,
Just got the appended bug report, what should I do about it ?
Is there a way to let sox stay in main ?
Is the solution to build a new .orig.tar.gz without that code in,
make a new upstream sox with new version number ?
I wonder if the other distributions have the problematic code in
guenter == guenter geiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
guenter Hi,
guenter Just got the appended bug report, what should I do about
guenter it ? Is there a way to let sox stay in main ? Is the
guenter solution to build a new .orig.tar.gz without that code
guenter in, make a
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
Fredericks, then of Cray now-- who knows?-- is source
for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
to provide for a display of
Greetings: God bless you.
I am not a developer - yet (my application has been in for a
few weeks), but I'm the erstwhile maintainer for both the orphaned
Debian package, and the upstream source, of xmailtool.
Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
Fredericks, then of Cray
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
Fredericks, then of Cray now-- who knows?-- is source
for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
to provide for a display of
78 matches
Mail list logo
