On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:27:49 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> For that matter, the same applies to the currently-posted summary of
> the GPL. At the moment, the summary just states that the GPL passes
> the DFSG because it is explicitly listed in DFSG 10. It would be
> highly preferable to compare t
On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:17:25 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> >Debian-legal has concluded that the LGPL (Library Gnu Public License)
> >v2 and LGPL (Lesser Gnu Public License) v2.1 is a DFSG-free license.
> >
> >
> s:is a DFSG-free license:are DFSG-free licenses:
Even better:
Debian-legal has con
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:59:55 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040519 00:25]:
> > I'm not quite happy with DFSG#10:
[...]
> If it's not a bug, then don't fix it. We have enough problems with
> unnecessary changes to the SC, so plea
On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:31:44 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Of course, the "not comfortable" in the message you replied to was
> referring to grandfathering, not to the freeness of the GPL, so it
> didn't really make much sense as a reply.
Yes. Thank you for highlighting this (just in case it wasn'
On 30 May 2004 06:28:12 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
> that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
> just give examples of things it *cannot*.
It sounds interesting: it may work better...
> I think that
On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:07:02 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
> Part 5 seems like it should be an appendix, and not part of the core
> guidelines.
I agree: much better to separate those /examples/ from the actual
guidelines.
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a progr
On Sun, 30 May 2004 09:06:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > * question: "Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds.
> > However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that
> > specify that the program must not be sold alone
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:35:09 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I guess, though, in a way
> it's another wording of the GPL's "you can't legally get a copy except
> by the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you
> accept this licence" clause.
Wait, wait!
I'm not sure I understand w
On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:04:36 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 2. Source code
> "The source for a work is a machine-readable form that is
> appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and
> inner workings."
>
> Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL?
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:24:55 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Comments will be appreciated - both about the general angle of
> > attack, and about my specific draft. I have probably forgotten about
> > a detail here and there.
>
> First comments
Antoher couple of comments
On 02 Jun 2004 12:52:37 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive.
Thus a downloaded package (e.g. from Deb
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:27:28 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> It seems to me that the person who puts something on line is usually
> regarded as the person doing the copying.
That is indeed what I have thought till a few days ago... And it's still
the most reasonable interpretation I can think
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:07:06 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The essence of what I would accept is this:
>
> "If you claim, legally, that my work can't be
> distributed/used/modified freely by people in general, then *you*
> can't distribute/use/modify my work either". A "if you think this
> sho
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:33:14 +0200 martin f krafft wrote:
> i release all my work under the artistic licence, or the
> do-as-you-damned-well-please licence, or an attribution licence.
> afaict, all these allow closed derivation. yet, they are all
> dfsg-free.
If you are referring to the Creative C
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:46:51 +0200 Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040602 16:42]:
> > If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by
> > the GPL's terms.[...]
>
> If you log on some computer and make a copy there and transmit it to
> you (like ssh
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> the reason you can copy a file
> which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
I don't think so: you are not granted any right by a license, unless you
accept t
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:45:59 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > > the reason you can copy a file
> > > which has been released under the
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:51:39 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that
> >if I> want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to
> >either> print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk?
> >This seems> onerous fo
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:53:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that
> >>if I want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to
> >>either print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk?
> >>This seems onerous for ph
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:21:08 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel,
> drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h has a specific proprietary rights
> statement which does not give permission to distribute.
I will not enter in the discussion about the nature of those firmw
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:22:06 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > IMHO the best solution would be to contact the firmware copyright
> > holder and persuade her to rilicense it under a GPL-compatible
> > license (so that every doubt would go away immediately)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:37:09 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
> > would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy,
> > right? A hardcoded string, copied to some device which runs it, and
> > maybe with some additio
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:58:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Of course, releasing the source is an essential step of making
> > something free.
> > When I wrote "to r[e]license it under a GPL-compatible license" (and
> > put a typo in it... :p ) I meant implicitly that source code should
> > be pr
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:27:28 +0200 Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > It would (if correct) make a lot of current copyright infringement
> > (or as it is sometimes called "software piracy") legitimate. Since
> > I'm not distributing the source code (which is the original work of
> > authorship), just a mech
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:16:53 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> Consider, for example, building emacs against a third party supplied
> proprietary libc.
That would possibly require modifying Emacs source code and that's the
creative act (it would create a derivative work, no doubt about that).
OTOH, when
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:26:05 -0500 Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[...]
> I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message.
I agree too.
> Here's an attempt
> at an unbiased summary:
>
> There are four classes of firmware:
>
> 1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have
> to
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:06:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> I would argue that while the new Social Contract makes it
> unambiguously clear that the DFSG applies to non-programs (such as
> documentation, etc), both the old and new Social Contracts clearly
> apply to "software".
> While it has been
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:47:53 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
> > into their own class of software because they rely on what is
> > generally commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably
> > illegal) software in order to run
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:00:14 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> What makes this particular point in time significant?
I'm not sure I understand your question... :(
It's not time that's significant, it's the operation you are performing.
What I'm saying (well, trying to say...) is that you are not addin
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
> > don't*depend* on non-free packages.
> > Usefulness is, IMHO, a c
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:09:52 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> I will agree that you are not creating creative elements.
>
> I see no reason to agree that you are not adding creative elements.
> You might very well be adding someone else's creative elements
> (depending on how your system is configured)
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:55:25 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Well, I thought that useless software is maybe not worth to
> > distribute at all. You seem to imply that a free, but useless
> > package must be placed in contrib rather than in main...
>
> I implied nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry if
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:16:51 -0400 Lex Spoon wrote:
> First, the GPL states explicitly that you must "accept" the terms or
> that you do not get permission to do anything with the code. Should
> we argue with a statement that the text says itself?
Wait, quoting from GPL#0:
| Activities other t
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:44:42 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about
> whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in
> action a few times, I feel that they are doing more harm than good
> because they always seem to include
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:01:36 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful.
>
> Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they&
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:32:01 -0500 Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
> Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
>
> ---
> APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE
> Version 2.0 - August 6, 2003
>
> Please read this License carefull
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:23:55 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Choice of law clause. This is regarded as fine, IIRC.
>
> Under the proviso that the law chosen is not in itself an issue.
Of course.
Anyway I agree with you that it's better to state it explicitly...
--
| GnuPG Key I
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:08:11 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
> 1a: Does applying a 'choice of language' clause to everyone make a
> license non-free (or is it acceptable the same way a 'choice of law'
> clause is)?
Perhaps it does not make a license non-free.
> 1b: Is a 'choice of language' clause
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:09:25 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> See also section 12e of the DFSG FAQ at
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Ah, I forgot that answer in the DFSG-FAQ...
So my interpretation of DFSG#5 was too extremist: I apologize for the
confusion.
--
| GnuPG K
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:23:40 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Interesting reply,
TNX
> but it seems to have missed my main point.
Ouch, I apologize for this... ;p
>
> On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > So, IIUC, you propose
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:22:12 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Nintendo are the only ones I'm aware of that try to pretend console
> emulators aren't legal (sheer sophistry though; they claim outright
> "this thing is illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes").
This is what I call the "an
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:57:57 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> The policy work involves the actual identification of freeness.
> DFSG-free is a (I believe strict) subset of OSI-free, and probably a
> superset of FSF-free.
I don't think that DFSG-free is a superset of FSF-free.
For non-programs there i
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:55:23 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 10:42, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Consider this sentence from the GNU Project's Free Software
> > Definition:
> > > It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have
> > >
> > > distributed a modified
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 06:05:24 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
> > don't*depend* on non-free packages. Usefulness is, IMHO, a
> > c
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
> that will load and display an "insert ROM" image (eg. NES, SNES), and
> one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do
> anything at all (eg. PSX BI
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:53:54 +0200 Stefan Völkel wrote:
> My understanding:
> * All Data in a debian package (Source, Documentation, Art, ...)
> has to comply to the DFSG.
Correct: this will be more clearly stated by a new wording of the social
contract that has already been approve
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:09:09 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> We should set a better example than those who overreach with their
> licenses and attempt to prohibit actions with no foundation for
> prohibition in copyright law.
>
> We should not attempt to enforce that which we *can't* enforce.
Yes
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:26:08 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Maybe we
> should show some examples of trademark terms we like? Maybe we could
> even make the damn debian logo artwork into one?
I think that the Debian logo issue should really be worked out.
Having a Free OS with non-free logos is a sort of
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:19:57 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
> > Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was able to find the english
> > version of the license. It's here :
> >
> > http://www.inria.fr/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.US.pdf
>
> For ease of quoting and c
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Why should Debian wait for one such image to *be packaged* before
> > moving the viewer from contrib to main?
> Oh, it doesn't need to be packaged. If it is, however, it proves that
> such an image exists.
I'm glad to hear this: at l
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:46:08 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite
> sufficient to render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you
> can make your own MP3s.
Out of curiosity, is that different from the status of MPEG videos?
That i
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:29:22 +0530 Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
[...]
> > As you can read elsewhere, I am not convinced that debian-legal is
> > equipped or wise to try to analyse licences in abstract.
>
> I'm afraid that this list will have to
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:24:14 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone
> > >
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:37:46 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > We must also collect some sort of license database, so as we can say
> > "this package is solely under the L license, hence it cannot be
> > DFSG-free for sure".
>
> What does this do that a database of summaries indexed by licence
> wouldn't?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:07:11 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> A license that goes out of its way to
> make freedoms hard to assert (possibly with the goal of preventing
> them from actually being asserted) shouldn't be considered free.
>
> Making freedom harder to assert is restricting freedom.
Inde
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:53:37 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Once you make a release, and you are afraid of loosing your changes,
> you send those changes upstream in prevention, and thus comply to the
> licence in advance.
That could be a good way to persuade upstream copyright holders to
switch to a
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:26:52 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > If you're selling the hard copies then you can probably afford to
> > > include a CD.
> >
> > I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that also
> > include CD production, but I could be wrong.
>
> Keep in mind that
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:06:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Under the GPL, the gove
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:32:52 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > (Whether or not this is an issue with using the GPL for manuals, I
> > have no idea.)
>
> It isn't a big deal: you can just stick a CD with the source of the
> manual in the back (
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > like to keep it.
>
> I'm sure that anyone would
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 09:03:31 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> > It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my
> > code than he/she granted me to his/her own code.
>
> Easy, you place your patch under the QPL, and then if upstream applies
> the patch, he clearly makes a modification of
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 05:31:18 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The question, for me, is whether starting to require this source is
> useful for Debian, balanced against the cost of throwing out stuff
> that clearly fails it, and the added maintenance costs (maintainers
> having to track down sources).
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> the QPL of the patch ?
I think that the initial developer does not have to comply with the QPL
of the patch, because he/she already has the rights he/she needs (the
right
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:24:23 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> As to the loophole: 3b says "When modifications to the Software *are
> released under this license*, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is
> granted to the initial developer" (emphasis mine). So if the changes
> are released under a differ
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:26:12 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Sure, I understand the benefit. [...]
> There's a cost, too, though. Source for images is often very big (eg.
> layered PSDs). Source for sounds is often huge, [...]
> (That's a separate question from "does the SC currently mandate it?";
>
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:48:38 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:00:17PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > This time, however, I thought that I should keep the
> > Mail-Followup-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
> > debian-legal@lists.debian.org alre
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:16:47 +0200 Jörgen Hägg wrote:
> This is the copyright I found in a program I'd like to package.
> Is it acceptable for 'main' or should I ask for a better copyright?
[...]
> And in COPYING:
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modificati
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:35:03 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> I strongly disagree that such clauses are non-free.
I still consider QPL 3b as non-free: I'm not allowed to redistribute
modifications under the same terms of the original software. At least
not to the initial developer. This, IMHO, violat
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:51:36 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Hence, they can't additionally release it under the GPL, because the
> software retains a restriction "must be additionally available under
> the terms of the QPL", and the GPL forbids that restriction. They
> couldn't quite release it und
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:58:20 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:54:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I don't think QPL#3b requires the other licenses to carry an
> > attached additional restriction such as "must be additionally
> > avail
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
> licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make
> modifications under a more permisive licence than the LGPL/QPL duo.
>
> So, would a wording wher
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:37:56 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> He doesn't have that permission himself. How can he possibly give it
> to others? If he can't release just under the GPL, how can he allow
> me to?
Well, it says "any other license(s)", not "any other license(s) with the
additional claus
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:11:57 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Anyway, we aren't going anywhere. I don't think this has any real
> impact on my opinion of the QPL, anyway, though it may to others.
Nor on mine...
I still think that QPL#3b is non-free.
Add the other issues that have larger consensus..
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:07:21 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Francesco, I think you're misinterpreting Sven's intent with the "more
> permissive" license. The idea is not that you or I would ever see
> such a thing; rather, INRIA sells licenses to Ocaml. You pay them
> $10k or so, and you ge
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:07:36 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and
> > any other licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD
> > licence.
> >
> > What do you find non-free in this ?
>
> It compels me to grant upstre
Hi all,
in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
I wonder if this is considered acceptable for main (I would say that
this is non-free). I don't know whether cdrecord links with (or is
otherwise a derivative work of) other GPL'd software (whose copyright is
held by other
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:40:49 + (UTC) Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Hello,
> This was about the recent change of license in a36 that was widely
> covered in the news, e.g. lwn or heise.de
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/006193.html
>
> We (cdrools Debian maintainers) were in ind
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:02:40 +0200 Kai Blin wrote:
> I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the
> package sear-media and another media package that'll follow when our
> DD finishes the package to this license, the GPL being a bit unclear
> when used for artwork.
I would s
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:53:35 +0200 Kai Blin wrote:
> > I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL.
> > I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork...
>
> Well, Section 3 of the GPL allows you to copy and distribute the work
> if you also distribute the source (or make it accesible
Hi all! :)
I found a package in main that does not seem to comply with the DFSG.
Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate.
I'm seeking help, as I would like to file a bugreport in the Right
way(TM).
What should I say in the bugreport?
The package I'm talking about is figlet: a small progr
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:46:52 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Could you please post the text of "Artistic-license.txt", along with a
> wdiff to /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic ? That would help
> greatly with ascertaining the Freeness of the license, and determining
> whether the modifications ar
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:06:34 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> See also libdvdcss, a piece of software that is Free Software in all
> jurisdictions except the United States, in which its use is restricted
> by ridiculous laws.
If you are referring to DMCA, I'm afraid that EUCD is very much similar
in
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:14:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a
> > > particular way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and
> > > cannot give permission for all possible uses of Debian
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:20:09 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> And if you're going to make a new one, consult debian-legal, cause
> we're sufficiently paranoid. ;-)
Indeed. And, as you may already know,
"Paranoy is a virtue." -- Anonymous
:-)
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:12:07 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > If these clarifications were to be made, would the licence be
> > considered DFSG-free?
> Um... I think so. Were there any other problem clauses?
The possibility for further modifiers to *add* unmodifiable sections
(Invariant Section
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:54 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Well, yes, but if I offer you the MS Visual C++ source code to package
> for Debian, and I tell you I'll give it to you under the GPL, you'll
> turn me down. Even though I give the relevant permissions, and it's
> the copyright hold
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:20:33 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that this is an equivalent situation...
> > I could be misleaded by my opinion that software patents are an
> > abuse and should not exist in the first place, but anyway I'll try
> > and clarify what my position i
xpat license.
And everyone would be happy...
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:49:12 -0500 John Cowan wrote:
> Francesco Poli scripsit:
>
> > a) releasing the work under a real copyright license grant (such as
> > the Expat a.k.a. MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
>
> The AFL *is* a "real copyright lice
terday.
......
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpiA0W7G2MLP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/docpolicy
[2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/doc/apt-howto
[3] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/index.en.html
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
Francesco Poli
ing
> ignored for sarge; I can do it for v1.x if it is a problem right now.
I'm very happy of hearing this! :)
I really appreciate your good will to relicense.
>
> Thanks,
Thanks to you, indeed! :)
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
.
Package: apt-howto
Version: 1.7.7-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
The Debian documentation policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy) reads:
| All manuals of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) will be released
| under DFSG-compliant licenses
On the other hand the APT HOWTO
about yesterday.
......
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpmnxuWsYGne.pgp
Description: PGP signature
orried about yesterday.
......
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpViwb8is7kR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Please remove reference to a specific copyright holder (The Regents of
the University of California) in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD and
rename it 3-clause-BSD. Including only one narrow variant of the
BSD license seems highly error-prone.
p; pasting it)
would often be a mistake.
I still think that my proposed common-licenses reordering would benefit
Debian...
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
Francesco Poli
terday.
......
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpCQtrXdQyPR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
king form, not another person's one.
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgp6QLjxEadVM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ing for you as
> soon as you become aware of its publication.
> Legal remedies against the modification of the
> License are not restricted by the regulations
> described above.
So I cannot license a program under a particular version of D-FSL and
not later ones.
An implicit "l
1 - 100 of 1628 matches
Mail list logo
