Re: JRockit in non-free, part II

2004-10-07 Thread Johan Walles
-Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:31:12 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original

Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib

2004-10-07 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert wrote: The program that generates lbrkprop.h is GPL'ed, but none of this GPL'ed code survives in lbrkprop.h. lbrkprop.h merely consists of a small wrapper (about 15 lines of simple code, which are unprotectible by copyright in my opinion) followed by data which are automatically

gkrellmoon - maybe a stupid question

2004-10-07 Thread Martin Zobel-Helas
Hi debian-legal-folks, i am working on gkrellmoon[1]. First of all, this package aims to be published under GNU Public License. In the tar.gz i found the following notice: This is just the code from glunarclock[2] warmed over and stuffed into a gkrellm plugin. Of course,

Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib

2004-10-07 Thread Paul Eggert
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added the GPL copyright notice to it now. Since the module description says LGPL, it effectively means the file is under LGPL. Thanks. That sounds quite reasonable to me. (Like I said, my

Re: JRockit in non-free, part II

2004-10-07 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:31:12 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Johan

Re: JRockit in non-free, part II

2004-10-07 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where does it say that mirrors need agreement from end users? And Debian asks end users to agree to stuff all the time. No. On the contrary, Debian is careful not to ask anybody to agree to anything. -- Henning Makholm

Patents again

2004-10-07 Thread Abdullah Ramazanoglu
Hello, There is a usenet discussion thread pertaining software patents, and several questions are still hanging open. I kindly ask that you read the thread and share your views. The original thread is in comp.os.linux.advocacy and starts with the message: Subject:Patents again Message-ID:

Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib / m4

2004-10-07 Thread Paul Eggert
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But since *.m4 files are often copied from one module to another, Isn't this much like saying source code is often copied from one *.c file to another? The FSF can do this, even if the code movement crosses the LGPL/GPL boundary, since the FSF has the