severity 451647 serious
thanks
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
Today I've filed a bugreport http://bugs.debian.org/451647 against
wacom-tools package. Its copyright file imho violates the policy (I
think I can cite it here since it is quite "concise")
,---
| This package was created by Ron Lee <[EMAIL
Dear Legal People,
I am sorry to drag your attention to such a primitive case but to don't
waste too much time in debates on the subject I am not strong in, I
decided to ask for clarification (and may be advice) from the list.
Today I've filed a bugreport http://bugs.debian.org/451647 against
wac
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:29:16AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The German law doesn't give Jörg Schilling more rights than any other
> one
Well, it gives him more rights than US law, which has no concept of moral
rights.
> These moral rights are:
> * The respect of the name of the auth
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007 à 08:30 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> For all I know he does have a legitimate claim under German law that cdrkit
> infringes his Urheberrecht, but cdrkit is not a German product per se.
The German law doesn't give Jörg Schilling more rights than any other
one, and
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On lördagen den 10 november 2007, Oliver Vivell wrote:
> > And if you use terms, please translate them into english, that
> > everybody understands them, so don't use "Urheberrecht" but the
> > english term "Intellectual property rights".
>
> "Intelle
On Nov 18, 2007 3:18 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but the license text does not seem to be much changed.
There are licence differences to the one I posted before, but that was
just because they made a mistake in which version of the licence to
post on the site.
I don't think t
On lördagen den 10 november 2007, Oliver Vivell wrote:
> And if you use terms, please translate them into english, that everybody
> understands them, so don't use "Urheberrecht" but the english term
> "Intellectual property rights".
"Intellectual property rights" is an attempt to a) bunch a number
Miguel Gea Milvaques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm thinking in package the fprint package. It's LGPL, but it contains a
> few files licensed as follow.
> I'm not sure if it's feasible to be in Debian. Can it go to main? and if
> the answer is no, can it go to non-free?
> Thanks.
>
> PD: Pleas
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This is of course completely wrong. Unless you accept the terms of the
> > GPL, the author's rights apply by default, so you don't have the right
> > to use, distribute or modify the software.
>
> Which doesn't change the
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:23:52 +0930 Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi!
>
> The final STIX fonts licence is available (quoted below too):
[...]
> Here are some of the comments they got on it:
>
> http://www.stixfonts.org/feedback-license.html
I read:
| Comment: The Debian project (http://www.debia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I'm thinking in package the fprint package. It's LGPL, but it contains a
few files licensed as follow.
I'm not sure if it's feasible to be in Debian. Can it go to main? and if
the answer is no, can it go to non-free?
Thanks.
PD: Please, include me
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 16 novembre 2007 ? 16:23 +0100, Joerg Schilling a ?crit :
> > If you talk to lawyers and ask them about the GPL, they will tell you that
> > the GPL is a contract offer that needs to be explicitely acepted by the
> > licensee.
>
> This is of course completely
12 matches
Mail list logo
