George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
MJ Ray, please would you be so kind to add your pointers about MPL and IDPL
at: http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html
It may appear there once the dust has settled on this discussion.
Its next stop should be legal/dlpl0509 if all goes
Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been unable to contact Don Kneller so far, so I'm currently
expecting to backport recent patches onto Noah's upstream version.
Before I do that, I'd appreciate feedback on whether the text below
is sufficient to explain the copyright and licensing
Mathias Weyland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
Some time ago I adopted the celestia package. The package contains
textures
which seem not to be DFSG free. (see bug #174456).
It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. I have two
options now:
Using the words 'This source code' rather than 'the source code' implies the
statement aplies to both the source and the data, which are often though of
together by programmers. I'm pretty sure that the GPL was intended to cover
the whole thing. Therefore if you are unable to ask for
The UCB advertising clause has been rescinded by the copyright owner.
See this authorization.
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
The advertising clause is no longer required and is deleted. With all
of the usual cautions about IANAL I believe it is enough to
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL. I'm pretty sure it's unused, but
an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it.
This may be a problem if it is used, as:
That
I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing
case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions.
A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to
do with international law.
In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about
this issue,
Scripsit Jennifer Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection
clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in
court. Because there are many other factors (like minimum contacts,
Long-Arm Statutes, foreseeability, superseding
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:28:23PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I fully understand that _may_ and _shall_ are different terms however,
and I will check on this, but I am pretty sure _may_ in this instance
is indicating _required._ Again I need to confer with someone to see
if licensing
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
As I understand it choice of venue clauses are standard boiler plate language
in agreements regardless of
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote:
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
As I understand it choice of venue clauses
Hi,
The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
removed as it was orphaned.
I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
terribly wrong with it.
Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with
it?
I wouldn't
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have
in licenses, however.
I suppose a lawyer would argue what is irrelevant at the moment may be very
relevant at a later time...good or ill it is safer to hedge than not,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:47:59PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
removed as it was orphaned.
I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
terribly wrong with it.
Can someone with more
14 matches
Mail list logo
