Re: Copyright verification needed

2007-06-29 Thread Bruno Costacurta
On Friday 29 June 2007 00:36:43 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 28 juin 2007 à 10:24 +0200, Bruno Costacurta a écrit : AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by

Re: slepc license

2007-06-29 Thread MJ Ray
Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to package SLEPc eigenvalue solvers[0] into non-free, the license is below. There is a line A modified version of the software cannot be redistributed. The debian package can be built without modificating the upstream sources though, so my

Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)

2007-06-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. You know, beyond the initial offensiveness,

Re: slepc license

2007-06-29 Thread Ondrej Certik
Permission to distribute binary packages at least. While you're asking, why not ask for it as free software? Even one with an obnoxious ad clause (so they get their attribution) would be an improvement. Hope that helps, That helps a lot. Thanks. I asked the upstream and they seem not to be

Re: Copyright verification needed

2007-06-29 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:34:33 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 26 juin 2007 à 00:48 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you don't apply section #6 This is

Re: Copyright verification needed

2007-06-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 00:36 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le jeudi 28 juin 2007 à 10:24 +0200, Bruno Costacurta a écrit : AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code

Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)

2007-06-29 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:17:10 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] In 2006, we had: - a resolution on the DFSG-free status of the GFDL Where the winning option legislated without *any explanation* that the DFSG issues of the GFDL (except for the invariant-like ones) do not exist. This

[PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-29 Thread Robert Millan
retitle 431109 [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks thanks On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:04:02PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: Following /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ, I'm reassigning this to debian-policy. Please read my email to debian-legal ad debian-policy

Re: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-29 Thread Santiago Vila
This proposal does essentialy two things: - Disambiguate GPL/LGPL versioning requirement by extending it to any DFSG compatible version the FSF may publish. - Deprecate use of symlinks, since they're a source of problems (as exposed by GPLv3, see

Re: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-29 Thread Santiago Vila
+ file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation, + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity. I disagree with this.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-29 Thread Robert Millan
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation, + hence

Re: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

2007-06-29 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Robert Millan wrote: On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these + licenses have been published by

Final text of GPL v3

2007-06-29 Thread Francesco Poli
Hi all, the final text of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 29 June 2007 by the FSF. The plain text form can be downloaded from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt The main substantial changes with respect to the Last Call Draft (discussed in the thread

Re: Final text of GPL v3

2007-06-29 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:47:59 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] The full final text of the GNU GPL v3 is quoted below for reference. My comments follow. The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. [...] 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law. [...] When you convey a

Re: Final text of GPL v3

2007-06-29 Thread Iain Nicol
(First: apologies. This message probably won't thread properly. This is because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the Usenet gateway is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the list email address. The trouble is my email client has no message to reply to, because it's not my