Am 2006-08-16 11:04:44, schrieb Bas Wijnen:
Hello,
When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux.
According to
the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the
MPEG2/MPEG4
codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is
needed
On Aug 17, 2006, at 16:44, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Patents on decoding something can not be enforced.
How so?
(Note that the unenforceability of the Welch patent against LZW
decompression was due to the way the claims were drafted--not due to
a general rule.)
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL
hi, Eterm was removed from debian testing because a
problem of license : there is a cannot be sold for
profit in some source file. is it possible to include
Eterm in non-free?
see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00572.html
cannot be sold for profit is ok with non-free?
we need to
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]
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian does not handel any software patents
The Debian project deals with the freedom of software for users of
Debian. If that freedom is restricted by law, it doesn't matter the
means used.
since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual
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
On 8/18/06, Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Am 2006-08-17 22:44:25, schrieb Weakish Jiang:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
opposite of current practice.
I think it's against the DFSG1 Free Redistribution and the DFSG3
Derived Works.
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that
On 8/17/06, Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4
is patented. It's well known.
In general, we do not know that filed patents are valid
patents.
In general, most patents which apply to programs that
run on general purpose computers
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:44:54 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Please note the adjective effective!
Questions:
A) Why are these two clauses different from one another?
B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance?
C) Does
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:36:11 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote:
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
Hi debian-legal,
While helping with a license audit of the largely LGPL'ed project ROOT
(message CC'ed to project contacts), I happened to notice that the
license for source package krb5, from which the ROOT source uses some
code, contains the following clauses:
-
Export of this software
bob marlet wrote:
hi, Eterm was removed from debian testing because a
problem of license : there is a cannot be sold for
profit in some source file. is it possible to include
Eterm in non-free?
see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00572.html
cannot be sold for profit is ok
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What puzzles me are the words WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT. Is that phrase
sufficient to cause US export restrictions to be incorporated into the
license? My understanding is that if so, it would not be DFSG-free, and
No. It merely remarks that the license does not give you
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the rights attached to the program and other such
16 matches
Mail list logo
