On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
.copyright
Took about
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
file, so i am not sure what
On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be
On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
--cut--
That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
we consider at all. We
On Saturday 10 September 2005 02:48, David Nusinow wrote:
--cut--
If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. If the
two sides live in different places, one of them has to travel no matter
what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say that choice of venue clauses
aren't
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you
want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane
cases' to enter the scene... all over
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
some restrictions present in the CDDL.
It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
license is free, then it's
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:07:30AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I just discovered that the ntp source is a nest of licensing problems.
The arlib subdir isn't distributable.
Neither is the entire libparse subdir, or anything
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 17:22, David Nusinow wrote:
--cut--
Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
the freedoms we expect from software. They do impose a potential cost on
litigation related to that software,
Please describe what do you think the
On Thursday 15 September 2005 01:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more
dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these
challenges, but it certainly should not be read
On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
protect people from being sued to begin
On Friday 16 September 2005 14:26, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution
rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk
imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of a
On Friday 16 September 2005 17:22, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
That's April Fool's Day.
On Saturday 17 September 2005 13:45, MJ Ray wrote:
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt
I think MPL is doomed. Nothing to comment about it.
My question is: Will FlameRobin
Hello -legal,
I would like to read your comments about the Global IP Sound iLBC Public
License, v2.0 - IETF Version - Limited Commercial Use [1] [2].
Please also see the ftpmaster references at #319201. I think we can make it
without that library licensed under iLBC, but it would be good to
On Saturday 01 October 2005 21:34, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 10/1/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/10/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
That's how (GNU General Public) virus is spreading. Yet
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 16:39, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to know if the CDDL [1] is an acceptable license, before I
possibly try to package jaxb from [2] for Debian. I didn't find this
license under [3].
Thanks, Eric
PS: I'm *not* on the list.
[1]
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 18:56, Dalibor Topic wrote:
--cut--
A possible resolution seems to be a per-case basis, but again it is too
far from feasible to predict how a certain jurisdiction will
change/evolve thru the time. I personally dislike such possible
hard-to-predict legal
On Monday 05 June 2006 11:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
-cut--
It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are
axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a
non-free condition.
***all applicable laws and regulations***
U.S. export laws aren't
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
escribía:
But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
export laws then there's nothing you
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:14, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
escribía
On Monday 05 June 2006 16:50, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:33, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply
with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of the Subject
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote:
All:
Hello,
thanks for your efforts.
Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have
worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify
the intent of the DLJ.
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance
into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI to a
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the
software? Could you trace your reasoning here?
Nobody said that and you
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...]
And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
in only Sun's Java to break rather than
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license
On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello *,
Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know
what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception
of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want
On Sunday 11 June 2006 20:31, Måns Rullgård wrote:
--cut--
What I'm talking about is different, each on their own free, licenses
being deemed incompatible with each other. Examples are the GPL, the
OpenSSL license, and the Open Software License. I find it hard to
believe that most authors
On Thursday 15 June 2006 21:53, Michael Poole wrote:
George Danchev writes:
Hello -legal,
I'm currently packaging sofia-sip.org SIP User Agent library which is
licensed under LGPL [1]. There is also a large file populated with
several copyrights [2] related to the code as used
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 01:56, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
George Danchev wrote:
I believe that the reason to have that in Sofia-SIP's
libsofia-sip-ua/su/strtoull.c is that it comes that way from the original
contributors like University of California and Sun Microsystems. Whom
legal
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 10:49, Pekka Pessi wrote:
ext George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps the usage is small enough that the code is not really a
derivative work of RFC3174. If you're lucky. If not, there's probably
an alternate SHA1 implementation somewhere which doesn't
Hello -legal,
I'm in doubt for RC bug:
1.2 debian/copyright: This package has many utilities that are GPL
or close to GPL code. close to GPL???
The original source code was published on the Net by a group of
cypherpunks. I picked up a modified version from the news.
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 18:21, MJ Ray wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked debian-legal:
Unfortunately John L Allen is unreachible to clarify the license terms of
his piece of code [3].
Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a
copyright for the code
On Thursday 29 June 2006 01:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
[ Cc-ing the bug report, so we have it in the bts, too ]
Hi!
- Now the real problem: shc.c
Lookit at it we have:
/**
* This software contains the
On Saturday 01 July 2006 08:41, Joe Smith wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
/**
* 'Alleged RC4' Source Code picked up from the news.
* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John L. Allen)
*
On Thursday 06 July 2006 17:36, MJ Ray wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
On Friday 07 July 2006 18:11, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
Hi List,
Hello Lists, Frank,
-legal,
Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at:
http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
this will serve as a future reference as well
On June 30th, I sent in RFS's for my two programs
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
Sure.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
--cut--
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND
On Sunday 30 July 2006 02:07, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
--cut--
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL
On Monday 07 August 2006 17:02, Martin Man wrote:
Please do not cc me on replies to debian-legal.
Hi all,
Hi,
I was searching around the web regadring the $subj, but I was unable to
find any official statement from Debian concerning the issue.
Is there any document that describes why
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:01, Martin Man wrote:
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--cut--
the original package in question was cdrtools by Joerg Schelling, Joerg
was claiming that debian refuses to upgrade to a newer version of his
sources because of
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 18:49, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Marcel Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor
On Thursday 10 August 2006 01:07, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:43, Sebastian Wangnick wrote:
Dear folks,
in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109, Mr. Schilling
claims the following:
In Europe, we have the Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat
that allows us to cite other works without
On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file
``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the
edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread
This is bullshit, a four clauses
On Sunday 10 September 2006 22:42, Joey Hess wrote:
znc contains a Csocket file with this license. I wonder if the requirement
that source code must be made available for no more than a nominal fee is
acceptable.
Hello,
* Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
On Saturday 10 November 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Oliver Vivell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
judge whether all other opinions beside yours are wrong.
It
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
--cut--
For software, one way to get there would be to create a very buggy
version of cdrtools and pretend it was all Joerg's original work.
An interesting question is how to stipulate in the terms of german legislation
that the derived work
On Sunday 11 January 2009 15:22:25 MJ Ray wrote:
Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de wrote:
It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other
distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign,
BTW.
Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search
59 matches
Mail list logo
