Re: Referring to upstream copyright statement from debian/copyright

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:58:10PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > or should I be pasting the entire text of AUTHORS into > debian/copyright? Yes you should. The promise we make in Policy is that the copyright and licensing status of the package is provided in the debian/copyright file, and the on

Is this translation in the Public Domain?

Hi all, I am involved in the packaging of an Urdu translation of Qur'an for Zekr . This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan. Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in the Pu

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:29:38 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: [...] > Oy... this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere good. They should > have just written a license that says "you must give back your > changes, even if you don't distribute" and just called it good... Like they did with GFDL's Inva

Referring to upstream copyright statement from debian/copyright

I have a closely related question to the one posed in the thread started at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00214.html My package has a fairly complicated constellation of copyright holders and licenses, and upstream has been helpful and provided a comprehensive statement in their

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:50:32 am John Halton wrote: > On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a > > user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with > > two things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons > > and links... and the apache ser

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On 20/11/2007, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are also examples where a company did not do anything until they > were served with legal papers. If you are only going to resort to > community pressure, then you might as well just make it a non-binding > request rather than a legal

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I've said before, I have some hesitations about the AGPL and its > possible consequences. However, we shouldn't underestimate the effects > of community pressure to help counteract the potential problems: if > the AGPL is (ab)used in an inappropriate way

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a > user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two > things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and > links... and the apache server by means of HTTP requests. It's the > server which then goes and

Re: GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:58:28 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit : > > Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? > > I don't think so. Agreed. And the FSF seems to agree, as well. They consider the OpenSSL license as incompatible with

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:01:09 -0600 Iain Nicol wrote: [meaning of "interaction over a network"] > It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broadly as possible. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, I've found the following GPLv3 FAQ[1]: | In AGPLv3, what counts as interacting with

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:07:14 am John Halton wrote: > So to use an example that I'm most familiar with, if you have a > Wordpress installation running on top of a LAMP stack then neither > Linux, Apache, MySQL nor PHP is itself capable of providing access > to its source for remote users. Ea

Re: GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit : > Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? I don't think so. > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this >software must display the following acknowledgment: >"This product includes softwa

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On 20/11/2007, Iain Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing we did not change is the phrase "interacting with [the > > software] remotely through a computer network." Many commenters > > expressed concern that this would include not only traditional GUIs > > that users manipulate for web-bas

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

Hi, On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:40:09 +0100, John Halton wrote: > Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if the FSF has given any guidance > on what they regard as "interaction over a network"? This is an issue > that came up in the previous thread. It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broad

GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

Hi, Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? According to Wikipedia [1], the OpenSSL license clauses that were problematic for GPLv2... 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: "This product include

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

On 20/11/2007, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker layer > and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never > *directly* interacts with public users "remotely through a computer > network"? Apologies for "tripl