"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote in message
news:mp+abdfeudxlf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk...
In message <20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org>, Peter Palfrader
writes
So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work
licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter doe
"Gunnar Wolf" wrote in message
news:20091125220338.gb24...@gwolf.org...
Mike Hommey dijo [Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:30:58AM +0100]:
More than the trademark fair use problem, there is one of a license one:
Are these logo really free ? (keep in mind that for example, the Firefox
logo is not, what
Jose Antonio Quevedo wrote:
[snip]
The license can be founded here:
http://www.ossec.net/main/license/
What can you tell me about it?
I find the the fact that they belive including the program in a propritary
installer executable creates a derivitive work worrysome. Normally that is
consi
"jochen georges" wrote in message
news:200906221753.51922.gnu...@gnugeo.de...
/*
*
*
* The Clearthought Software License, Version 2.0
*
* Copyright (c) 2001 Daniel Barbalace. All rights reserved.
*
* Project maintained at
"Robert Millan" wrote in message
news:20090410200117.gb30...@thorin...
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:15:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:38:33 -0400 Hubert Figuiere wrote:
[...]
> Except that the original files don't have any notice. For those that
> did, the notice has
"Stéphane Glondu" wrote:
So one could even
make a proprietary compiler using C as an intermediate langage, and GCC
for the final stage, I guess.
Comeau C++'s GNU/Linux builds do exactly that. (In general it uses the local
C compiler as a slightly higher level assembler. This saves them the
Florian Grandel wrote:
I have to make a correction from my earlier post. I said:
core library licensed under GPLv2
This is not true. See [1] for the core xdoclet license which doesn't seem
to be any standard license.
The licence you linked to is the standard 3-clause BSD. They even forgot
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote in message
news:49c8da6f.7050...@debian.org...
4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license
with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor
do you have to identify the FLTK license in your
program or documentation as requ
"Ben Finney" wrote:
I'd hardly call that “the whole point” of the licenses; if anything,
it's a property of how they're used.
Fair enough
It's also a pretty poor practice: it makes access to that specific
document online a pre-condition to knowing the license terms in the
work at any given
"Ken Arromdee" wrote in message
news:20090322071908.98b07b...@violet.rahul.net...
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html
Read carefully the s
Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using
an appropr
"Ken Arromdee" wrote:
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
IANAL, IANADD.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Alexander Block wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not
great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be
better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of
that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.
"MJ Ray" wrote:
in which I dare OSI to sue me for describing TGPPL as "Open Source":
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:531:200902:ofpndmgcgmbhbmimpkpe
The OSL copyright holder is Lawrence Rosen, not OSI, so I think it is
Lawrence Rosen, not OSI, who could sue you. In case that's
"Ben Finney" wrote in message
news:874oyuq3ki@benfinney.id.au...
"Joe Smith" writes:
This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to
copyright
That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as
defined where? Or what, exactly,
tring does the right thing here).
This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to
copyright, even the variable names and whitespaceing are as non-creative as
possible. (Although I would recomend reformatting the whitespace used to be
more readable).
Use it and be happy.
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy
your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there
will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes
it a replacement for the LGPL.
There most
"MJ Ray" wrote:
I think we've consensus on software that uses CeCILL (upgradeable to
GPL, so meets DFSG) and we've discussed CeCILL-C, but what do we think
of B? My searches didn't find much discussion of it here, or any
packages in the archive using it yet. A copy follows. Please cc the
bug
"Cristian Greco" wrote:
Hi all,
I'm working for a new upload of deluge[0] (bittorrent client).
The source tarball includes a GeoLite Country (binary) database by
MaxMind, which should be distributed using the license[1] below.
I've found that ktorrent (CCing to pkg-kde-extras, please CC your
"Andre Felipe Machado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
The most recent source package could be downloaded from
http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/apt.html
For convenience, attached is the file to be analyzed (COPYING).
Please, what are the possible consequences
"Peter S Galbraith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi...
I have packaged a nice software called geotrans (ITP #468918):
http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/
whose author is NGA (US National Geospatial-Intelligence
The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth
making.
"Matthijs Kooijman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try
to
make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happ
"Don Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The key words here are what "totally free" means, and what "use"
means. If "totally free" means "you have the freedom to do anything
you wish with these works" then that's a different meaning entirely
than "you don't
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maximilian Gaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
These rights, on this notice, rely.
Is this meant to have some legal meaning? Or should we ignore it?
The poem is obviously a form of translation of a simple permisive lice
"Neil Williams" wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I
checked if these pa
"Arnoud Engelfriet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Finney wrote:
I don't think "is intended for [use Foo, Bar, Baz] only" is a
restriction upon the recipient. It states the *intent*, but isn't
phrased as a condition or restriction on what the recipient actually
"Mauro Lizaur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Will you please respond to my E-Mail ASAP. I am curious as to whether
this promotion, for self-profit, is a valid use. I personally do not
like the Debian GNU/Linux Logo being used for the profit,
"Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All,
The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
announcement below.
As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
terms. The intention is to allow code-like portio
"Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All,
The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
announcement below.
As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
terms. The intention is to allow code-like portio
"Jan Christoph Nordholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
I've extracted my current license list from my WIP inform package to
-> http://www-pool.math.tu-berlin.de/~hesso/deb/inform_copyright_list
I guess it will be no problem to reach at least the more prominent RAIF
regulars like Emily Short, Ro
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Jan Christoph Nordholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is the archive granting rights without th
"Jan Christoph Nordholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, just what I thought - but would it be different if I converted the
package to download those files during postinst, similar to flash-
plugin? Does that README's "free for personal use" apply at all,
so I c
"Wen-Yen Chuang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
The beneath-a-steel-sky and flight-of-the-amazon-queen are two packages
in Debian main/games.
I opened ITP #478543 for the game lure-of-the-temptress. Its licens
I agree with Francesco Poli that the license, while not ideal, is
acceptable. Using 3a (licencing the changes under the same license, or any
compatible licence, and distributing them through the Debian mirror network
definately satisfies that requirement. End users can choose 3b if they will
no
"Alan Woodland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is
distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for
OpenDx currently doesn't have an
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK. Another question: nikto has been removed but is still present in
stable. It contains the same non-free data. Since the package has been
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Suppose you have a chunk of code that implements initialisation of
an MSDOS executable. If you concatenate a payload (raw code) after
it, you obtain a .exe that runs your code (a
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:07:40 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
Well it is no less free than the MPL.
IMO, the MPL does *not* meet the DFSG.
That is exactly why I phrased it as "no less free tha
"Francis Tyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello there,
I'd like to package piece of software for Debian called VISL CG
(Constraint Grammar).
The licence file (see Appendix A.) is a bit strange, and although it
states it is derived from the MPL, I'd like to ge
"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Do 21 Feb 2008 10:25:01 CET
schrieb "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> IMHO the patches sent to a upstream author which
> does
"Giacomo Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello!
Now microcode as a new license
Backgroud:
In 2000 (or 2001) we already discussed about license of the microcode,
and I convinced Intel to change license.
But also the second license was not so clear, and a
"David Paleino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've contacted the upstream author (CCed), and he said [1] that he would
have
put it under GPL (which is, indeed, DFSG-free) and that this was stated on
the
project's homepage [2]. Is that sufficient? Or should he
"Charles Plessy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear debian-legal,
A non-free program for which I maintain a package has changed its UI
toolkit from lesstif to Qt. The program is free for non-commercial use,
and upstream payed for a Qt licence. I understand that pr
"Arnoud Engelfriet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Florian Weimer wrote:
| You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
| convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
| in force. You may convey covered works to others for
"Andres Mejia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I'm sorry, I forgot to ask about other concerns that myself and
another member of the Debian Games team had.
You should have been more clear that you were concerned not about freeness,
but about the ability t
"Ivan Ristic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I am the original author of ModSecurity (http://www.modsecurity.org),
an open source web application firewall, which is licensed under GPLv2.
ModSecurity was acquired by Breach Security in late 2006. I joined
the com
"Cyril Brulebois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
it looks like one can't help writing new licenses, so in addition to
CeCILL, CeCILL-B[1] (said to be BSD-like) and CeCILL-C[2] (said to be
adapted to software components) have been published[3]. Note that French
"Don Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Joe Smith wrote:
That is not sheet music, but more of a raw storage of notes,
timings, and durations (not too unlike a midi file).
What else is sheet music but a storage form o
"Don Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote:
1. A game system comprising:
an input apparatus which is manipulated by a player;
performance data memory device which stores performance data
stipulating a series of manipulat
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
IV. Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities; Indemnification
[...]
4. You shall indemnify, defend and hold all (co)authors of This Product,
their
agents and associates, and applicable copyright/trademark owne
"Marcin Owsiany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[0] My explanation of the problem
|
| I had a look at the COPYING file in the root of PSI source tree [1],
which,
| due to lack of any more specific licensing information seems to be the
| binding license for
"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is
*incompatible* with french law?!?
I gather that one reason for some of the changes in GPL v2
"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Including that notice in the package long description would
certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via
aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up
such as to allow us to include a
"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which
they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on
which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the
recipi
My reading of this says that any modified version cannot be called STIX or
any confusingly similar name.
You may add or change characters. You may remove characters but if you do so
you must note that the font does not contain the full set of characters that
STIX had.
Well that is at least my
"Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Andreas Metzler:
I think that the resulting library /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 does not
inherit the licenses of the build-system, and ends up as LGPLv2.1+
both in 0.3.x and 1.x. Can you confirm this?
You should ask t
e license to
the minimum.
I am not a Debian Developer, so this message in no way is a statement on
behalf of the Project. (Although I suspect many would agree with my
sentiments on this issue).
I am also not a Lawyer, ergo, this is not Legal Advice.
Joe Smith
PS: It looks like we may be a
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Music in digital form, being digitially-stored information, *is*
> software :-) As Eben Moglen said, it's foolish to try to
> distinguish different freedoms for a bitstream depending on how
> those bits happen to be inte
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Music in digital form, being digitially-stored information, *is*
software :-) As Eben Moglen said, it's foolish to try to distinguish
different freedoms for a bitstream depending on how those bits happen
to be interprete
"Josselin Mouette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No
party to this Agreement will bring a legal action under this Agreement
more than one year after the cause of action arose. Each party waives
its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.
I'm not sure
"Michael Pobega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:18:37AM -0400, Quintin Riis wrote:
Whilst searching google for a linux monopoly clone, I found the following
site that appears to be using the
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Quintin Riis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Whilst searching google for a linux monopoly clone, I found the
following site that appears to be using the debian logo in their
artwork.
http://www.adultmatchmaker.biz/
Yes,
"Diehl Markus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
on one of our VoIP GSM gateways we use Debian/GNU Linux.
For export issues according to US law we require a so called ECCN code
for the gateway.
The ECCN code of our VoIP GSM gateway will be determined by the ECC
"Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should be clarified: there's no license by that name (they most likely
mean the "GNU Lesser General Public License"), and must specify which
version applies. The package source from upstream should include a
copy of the
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dererk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The developer of a software I'm about to package, faced the problem
of exporting cryptography libraries outside the US, he finally
turned out his view and he will make his main reposito
"Michael Biebl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and a copy of it:
==
This package is based off Adobe XMP SDK 4.1.1, distributed
under the BSD license reproduced thereafter for convenience
and
"Pat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How would the US export restrictions be applicable to a custom debian
cdrom? The cdrom would have no additional crypto functionality than
what is already available in debian and there would be no changes to
the source code, so h
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07/08/07, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
: Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands
> of words nonfree?
Because it is non-f
"Lior Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I would like to package [0] a software that contains a file [1] from
unicode.org.
The copyright / license notice is :
Copyright (C) 1999-2005, ASMUS, Inc. All Rights R
You are always free to upload a package, as long as the Legal file documents
all known legal issues (and it is in fat legal for you to distribute it).
The job of determining if the work meets the DFSGs belongs to the
ftpmasters. Debian-legal exists to discuss the issues, which is hoped to
assis
"Anthony Towns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) The MPL requires you to make the source code to your modifications
available for six-to-twelve months electronically _or_ to make it
available on the same media as the executable version. We do the latter.
In thi
I agree with AJ's statements and add only this:
Apt is priority important. That is the same priority as openssl.
Apt has relativly few revese dependencies (it appears to have less than
openssl does). But libapt is without any doubt
a system library under the GPLv3. It accompanies apt which is wi
"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Shane,
Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will
be
released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that
recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpo
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
All the gnucash source code used in gpe-cash is "GPLv2 or later".
The Gtk frontend for gpe-cash is GPLv3 or later. I am therefore
using my
"Neil Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All the gnucash source code used in gpe-cash is "GPLv2 or later".
The Gtk frontend for gpe-cash is GPLv3 or later. I am therefore
using my option to distribute and modify the gnucash source code
under a later version
"Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
| e. For the avoidance of doubt:
|
| i. Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those
| jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through
| any statutory or compulsory licensing s
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is not Debian related, but I think you are the ones who know
best about licensing issues.
This list, debian-legal, is a resource for Debian developers to
determine wheth
"Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Francesco Poli:
To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
the SHING GPL.
"SHING GPL" ?
"Sun HP IBM Nokia Google", major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries
of this clause:
| You ma
"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have
to
do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires
source
code availability? How does making the source code availabl
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
a new "Last Call Draft" of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 31 May
2007 by the FSF.
The full text of this fourth draft can be read at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html
My comments on the d
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am sorry for not being clear enough: I meant to refer to the *thread*
that started from your message, not just to your message.
I now realize that, unfortunately, the rest thread was on the next month
and hence is
"Jason Spiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/15/07, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
How about:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d.
added saying:
You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from
-legal
I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion.
See http://lists.debian.or
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
In the US:
The word "Debian" is a regestered trademark of SPI. Or more accurately, the
word "Debian" is a trademark registered by SPI on behalf of the De
"Suraj N. Kurapati" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an
additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
I think this stems from source code not requireing a patent license.
So if the source code is available, the patent can be bypassed by
havi
The following is intended to be a compression of your comments down into the
most important points (generally, the areas you are concerned about),
to aid further discussion. As well as some responses to your comments. (I
had to manually fix the quoting, so apologies if I mess it up somewhere).
The entire draft can be found at the end of the message. I belive some
positive changes have been made, but some changes are for the worse.
Here is my analysis of the license. This is more a general analysis, but I
am trying to point out any DFSG-freeness problems I find.
I have no real comme
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly, and in some cases an author/maintainer *may* prefer to modify a
lossy-compressed form directly.
In some other cases, he/she *may* prefer working on uncompressed data
and recompress afterward...
Yes, I'm real
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade nicely.
This message will have general comments about the licence mixed in with DFSG
freeness concerns.
Unless I explicitly mention a comment as being a freeness-concern i
"Fabian Greffrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A quick glance showed me nothing that seemed to prevent downloading
the data files from the ftp site, but it does bring up the question of
whether the port of the main program was possible without violating
[6][d] or
"Walter Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Back in summer 2006, there was a thread regarding the inclusion of Sun's
Java under the DLJ in Debian's non-free area on its FTP site.
Questions about the license were raised at
"Fabian Greffrath" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That zip does not contain that file:
Sorry, you are right. It is contained in the `ROTTSW13.SHR' file which
is just another zip file.
Find attached the full VENDOR.DOC.
A quick glance showed me nothing that seemed to prevent down
"Matthew Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a
licence
claiming to be "C
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/21/06 13:53, Joe Smith wrote:
That's probably considered fair use for the purpose of which it was
intended. I'd guess Microsoft is unlikely to complain. In any case,
you should ask the
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/21/06 11:00, Daniel van Eeden wrote:
The file /usr/lib/tkchooser/icons/winpop.pnm from the tkchooser package
uses an
microsoft windows logo. Is that legally permitted?
Please CC or BCC me, I'm not on the list.
Tha
"Carles Pina i Estany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Gnuplot has a non-common license:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnuplot/gnuplot_4.0.0-5/gnuplot.copyright
It says: It is obligatory to add oneself (e.g. Debian) as primary
contact if
"Warren Turkal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can someone take a look at these docs at [1] and let me know if the XML
schemas that are distributed by XBRL International can be redistributed in
a
Debian compatible way? It doesn't look like the documents can be mod
"Sean Kellogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:47, Ben Finney wrote:
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Apparently law instead requires us to assume users are in f
"Sean Kellogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] My trademarks prof, who did trademark work for wine companies, really
disliked that line of reasoning, since wine consumers are usually of higher
sophistication and could distinguish beer from wine. However, the P
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
