Le 28 juin 2023 16:25:09 GMT+01:00, Joshua Allen a écrit :
>Dear Debian Legal,
>
>I was going through the Nethack General Public License and even though it is a
>free software license obviously not compatible with the GNU GPL, how do you
>maintain it without calling it nethack though since
2019-12-15 1:26:28 PM Jonas Smedegaard : [...]
> As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits
> classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software".
>
> As I understand it, you personally classify license fulltexts as
> "non-free software" and then add a
Eriberto Mota wrote:
> I am packaging a software that distribute a Tux image [...]
> The original license can be viewed here[1]. [...]
> [1] https://isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/
That page also includes "Feel free to do whatever you see fit with the
images, you are encouraged to integrate them
ss I'm going blind again, you forgot to tell us what [1] and [2] are.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Riley Baird wrote [apparently not citing authors]:
>> DFSG-free software usually refrain from restricting use or download.
>
> Is this a requirement? The Microsoft Public License states:
>
> If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not
> accept the license, do not use the
ion of DFSG §5, right?
Yes, it probably would - how would the listed people ever gain a new
valid licence?
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
persons fails DFSG 5 for sure, doesn't it?
It might also fail 1 or 3 because it seems like the reverse of licences
that REQUIRE authors to disclose their names, which I think have been
widely regarded as failing to meet DFSG and even gave rise to the
Dissident Test.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray
DAMAGES OR
# ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS,
WHETHER
# IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT
# OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
CC'd as requested.
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop
On 11 July 2014 16:20:45 CEST, Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se
wrote:
Standardization bodies tend to want to not have random
people making random changes to their standardization documents that
would create incompatible versions of the standards. The documentation
licenses used by
On 4 August 2014 13:26:11 GMT+01:00, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
(-project dropped from the CC)
MJ Ray writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license):
Secondly, unless it says otherwise, a naming restriction in a
copyright licence doesn't permit honest source
On 2 August 2014 04:51:30 CEST, Riley Baird
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote:
Another thought: Doesn't the Zend Engine License also have the same
problem as the PHP License in that we are not allowed to use the words
Zend or Zend Engine for modified versions of the Zend
On 31 July 2014 01:03:00 CEST, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Back to the question of rebranding, the PHP developers have already
explained
that because PHP is a three-letter word, they are not in a position to
protect their name with a trademark. Therefore, they do it with a
license.
On 1 August 2014 17:59:11 CEST, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
wrote:
Similar situations often arise in relation to trademarks. Our usual
approach in such cases has been to rely on the informal assurances,
and not seek any kind of formal trademark licence amendment.
I thought we
On 30 July 2014 22:00:17 CEST, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of
PHP. I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute
under the name of PHP is anything but the
that helps,
- --
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop
would be most appropriate.
No and (as ever) it depends on the aim but I'd prefer one of MIT/BSD/GPL.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http
under Section 9.1, this License is granted to You
for the duration of applicable rights in the Database.
This helps to meet DFSG 1, as does 9.5 about relicensing.
I would welcome other analyses.
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha
someone will fork it and maintain it better. I think that's
happened to other Oracle projects when they went a bit nutty.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only
On 02/09/13 21:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop writes:
whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers
seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote
http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png
You know that l.d.o is not the only
-dak as suggested in that message, I've done a bit of
-l10n-english-style language tidyup work, but debian-dak doesn't seem
to do anything relevant to licensing as far as I've seen so far.
Confused,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha
.)
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop
it a month or so after that sort of change.
I will submit the list topic change as a wishlist bug Real Soon Now
unless I'm told not to.
Regards,
- --
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My
replies with
relevant references.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5224697f.5060
more) has contributed well, so
listen to pabs if that's your criteria.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http
that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ supporter, web and LMS developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop
might be one way to do that.
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development
situation for users. So I ask licensors to
explicitly grant permission to distribute only the patches and a link to
the upstream.
This might not have been the intent, but this wouldn't be the first
quirk in AGPLv3.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
Varun Hiremath va...@debian.org
The chess tablebase files are generated by the Gaviota Engine whose
license is clearly not DFSG compatible. However, the author is
releasing the generated database files under the MIT license. Is the
MIT license for these database files DFSG compatible? [...]
Paul Wise p...@debian.org
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
The Gaviota Engine licence shouldn't apply to the database files. See
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput for a similar topic.
Sounds like they should go to contrib though, due to the non-free build-dep
Giulio
Is there any way to be 100% sure? I am still waiting for a reply
from upstream on this.
As far as I know, the only way to be 100% sure is for it to be subject
to a precedent-setting court ruling or legislation, but even that will
only provide certainty for one jurisdiction - and it's
. the copyright-lacking sense used already in this thread;
2. publicly available.
I've not seen case law, but I fear that it would be reasonably
possible for someone to convince a court that a holder meant to make a
work available but not permit everything.
Anyone seen it tried?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef
Jérémy.
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging?
Short answer: any software in that country is not free software, but
would accept it, but I'm not 100% sure.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including
Christoph Mathys erase...@gmail.com
Upstream has kind of dual licensed the package under GPL and BSD license
(PKG-INFO says BSD, the implementation file mercurial_keyring.py says GPL).
I contacted upstream and he is willing to change the license to whatever
is required, but preferable to
in.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop
Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr
I would like to package z-push in Debian. It seems to me that it's ok to
ship it in Debian, but I'm not sure if it's ok to keep the upstream name
z-push, due to some addition to the AGPL license.
[...]
If you want to propagate modified versions of the Program
Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan
After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is
really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition
insufficient for Debian Project.
Am I right?
I don't think so. The DFSG dates from 1997. The Free Software
Definition
Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com
To me, this means that the main figlet package is now DFSG-compliant.
Would someone else be able to confirm for me that this package is ok to
move back from non-free to main?
If all the files are now under that licence, I think it is OK.
(crc.c, crc.h,
Paul Wise p...@debian.org
This is the relevant section of the CC NC licenses:
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of
the
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher)
Mark Weyer m...@weyer-zuhause.de writes:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
c. The name(s) of all routine(s) in your derived work shall not
include the prefix iau.
Non-free: It effectively forbids using a
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com
[Posting this again to debian-legal, as suggested by Jonas. Keeping
pkg-multimedia and pkg-gstreamer in CC for this initial mail, but
please keep replying to -legal. Sorry for the inconvenience!]
I'm confused by the above, so I'm keeping all the CCs.
Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com
following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
is it still DFSG ?
If it just this one addition:
Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used
by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software,
containing modifications that
Paul Wise p...@debian.org
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:53 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Is the headline that, in a fit of Not Invented Hear and licence
proliferation, Mozilla is planning to phase out the GPL/LGPL
tri-licensing?
Please redirect your complaints somewhere they may have an affect
this, but I will note that your intent looks a little
unfair, demanding that others grant you more permissions than you
grant them. Of course, that is your right while you are maintaining
the project, but it may limit contributions.
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than
under MPL 2.0 can
be combined with a Hello World to convert to a GNU *GPL.
Disappointed,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
be worthwhile.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:57:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I don't know of anywhere that Powered by SugarCRM is a legal notice.
Does anyone? What legal effect does it have?
I worked on the drafting of GPLv3 at my previous job (no tomatoes,
please :). You
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com
Is there a debian-legal position on Appropriate Legal Notices
aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b); OR, alternatively,
the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License (CPAL).
I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates
with
Ken Arromdee wrote:
[GPLv2, section 3] That section only applies if you got a
written offer. People who use Bittorrent to download (and therefore to
upload) Debian don't have a written offer, so they can't take advantage of
that clause. (Debian itself is, as you point out, distributing
Stefan Hirschmann wrote:
Short English summary:
-
A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a Abmahnung [2] to a person which
downloaded Debian using Bittorrent.
The company Media Art Holland b.v claimed that she has the Nutzungs
und Verwertungsrechte (something like
Andrew Harris wrote:
I am the author of a new Free Software license called the Chicken Dance
License. It is a BSD-based license that offers extra hilarity over most, if
not all, other Free Software licenses. This new legal infrastructure that I
seek to create will result in less hair-pulling
Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code
in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the
context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for
quite a long time.
Are you sure it's the most accepted? I
Paul Wise wrote:
This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have
rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were
generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ:
Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do
not
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked:
I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During
checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps
and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2].
Can these be shipped in the source and binary package?
[1]
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I think one is deep into language
Bernhard Reiter asked:
The following license applies to one cardset included with
pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to
me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus
okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't
Andrew Ross wrote:
The full license can be found at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/agpl.php
[...]
I don't want to mis-represent what Bruno has said, so hopefully he'll
chime in and expand further if I get anything wrong here. I think the
following paragraph from Bruno sums up his viewpoint:
Bruno Lowagie wrote:
Please don't avoid the question: does the freedom to hide information
prevail over the freedom to get information?
You mean like you avoided the question: what is the actual case here?
This list works better when it is discussing actual software which be
considered for
Modestas Vainius wrote:
this bug is serious (i.e. the file is not shippable), isn't it? Problematic
copyright notice is below.
The copyright notice is false (the confidentiality has been broken)
but I see no permission to distribute, so your claim seems correct.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
Ricardo Mones asked:
I've found a theme which states it's licensed 'Creative Commons by-nc-sa'.
My question is whether is possible assume the version of the license or
not (note that my first reaction to this is this is not a valid license,
but I'm not sure if my feelings are right).
Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
No comments on this?
I didn't understand what anyone was meant to do with it.
Make it easy to understand what you want
If you want something, come right out and say it. People read so many
emails that they often don't guess at what a cryptic message means,
but
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.*
domain and donate it to the project, please contact
hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it.
Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of
Domain handling for Debian.
Cool. Does
inkvizitor68sl asked:
Is it possible to use debian.* domains for websites with documentation
about Debian (and sometimes - for Ubuntu and some other distros, as
much of manuals can be used at any distro) ? I mean here some blogs.
Personal, for this moment, but there will be new authors in
quim@nokia.com wrote:
Julian wrote:
* Package names contain meego everywhere. According to common
believe, they are not subject to trademark restrictions (that's
why we had a firefox compatibility package for
firefox-iceweasel transition). They are merely an
Ibrahim Haddad wrote:
We would ask you to move away from using {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o or any subset of
those letters or sounds in that order, alone or in combination with other
letters, words or marks that would tend to cause someone to make a
reasonable connection of the reference with the MeeGo
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Especially this part: Any person wishing to distribute modifications
to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original
developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical
version., can it be considered DFSG-free?
It looks like a request not a
Stefan Bauer wrote:
Basically that is true, setkey as part of ipsec-tools is using parts of
openssl-headers. Howto deal with that? From what i've read is, that if
the upstream authors are aggree on adding an openssl exeption to there
license, that would be a solution around this problem. I
philip tricca wrote:
I've run across a company using the Debian logo slightly modified in a
way that appears to violate the logo license (at least in my reading of
it): its use is not in reference to the Debian project. The company
site can be found here:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org
On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that
provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is
nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 00:54:22 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Let's tackle this from a different angle. What were the ongoing
concerns and aren't they solved yet? Who do I need to talk to in order
to change the license?
The DPL.
AFAIK when the logo license was
Gustavo Franco wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
* Btw, if it was the open logo, we're not talking about software. DFSG
quote about Derived Works states original software;
I feel that's unacceptable - the logo is software
Gustavo Franco wrote:
Please bear with me if it was discussed here before, I wasn't CC'ed.
Do you want to be? I've guessed yes, but please state explicitly.
Pre-filing discussion is around
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/06/msg00014.html
Pompee William filled #587668 (The Debian
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
## ODC Open Database License (ODbL)
Better late than never, what follows is my own personal analysis of the
license.
I thank Francesco Poli for this analysis and regret that I do not have
time just now
markus schnalke asked:
It's about the package `masqmail'. The upstream release includes an
MD5 implementation (in src/md5). This MD5 code is the reference
implementation code from RFC 1321 and RFC 2104.
See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293932#50
which basically recommends
Yavor Doganov wrote:
Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:23:16 +0100, MJ Ray
If the GPL program links with another library, why does it need ifdefs
or configure options? Surely that's left to the library?
Well, the program can check for the presence of libcurl-gnutls and
libcurl, and conditionally link
Yavor Doganov wrote:
Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:09:19 +0100, MJ Ray
Yavor Doganov wrote:
I see no difference between this scenario and a classic C program that
supports both OpenSSL and GnuTLS via #ifdef's and `configure' options.
In the C-ifdef scenario, the GPL program is derived from both
Yavor Doganov wrote:
Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:35:45 +0100, MJ Ray
I think the suggestion is that software using python-pycurl would not
change if they were using openssl or gnutls. I don't understand how the
GPL'd software is derived from openssl if it works interchangably with
gnutls
Charles Plessy wrote:
it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with
some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty
disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully
been used in court by the plaintiff.
Here
Yavor Doganov wrote:
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:57:24 +0100, Guido Trotter
Now, what would be the status of (unmodified) GPL python software which
imports pycurl?
According to the FSF licensing team, such software must be under
GPL+OpenSSL exception.
Guido Trotter wrote:
According to my understandment:
- OpenSSL is released under a license which is GPL incompatible, unless an
exception to the GPL is used in the software compiled with it. Debian cannot
distribute GPL software released under the unmodified GPL and linked against
Pompee William william.pom...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the DOULL there's no warranty provided for the use of the
software referring to the logo WITHOUT Debian but there's nothing said
for the logo WITH Debian. Does it assume I may complain to the Debian
Project for the use of a
markus schnalke asked:
[1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2000-09/0392.html
[...]
I surely do want to give credit. My point is about including 18162
bytes of license for 262 bytes of straight forward code.
What do you think?
I think the email from Marco is trivial because he
Thibaut Paumard suggested:
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under
[1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...]
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?
CeCILL Article 5.3.4 states The Licensee can include a code that
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some
I feel it's some combination of DFSG 5 (discriminating on location)
and DFSG 1 (non-monetary cost
Nicolas Alvarez nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
This choice-of-venue discussion looks
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...]
The problem with this line of argument is that it
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL
would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.)
Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also
included the book title and author name, I
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is,
then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was
blind.
[...]
Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy
Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question?
I'm pretty sure that commercial applications in legal use means
something different to commercial software applications, so I'd say
that the act of distribution itself is sometimes a commercial
application.
I'm not
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header,
deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I
considered those irrelevant for the question at hand.
I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some
cate wrote:
Eugen Dedu wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
any use doesn't include distribution of software.
For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable,
Bart Kelsey wrote:
I may have overstepped a bit in terms of aggregate. What I'd *like* for
this license to cover is basically a *project* -- a piece of software, as a
whole, which makes use of the media in question. There isn't really a need
to contaminate *other* software with this license.
Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org wrote:
GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation.
It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with
patches and issues.
[...]
Currently I see only three options:
1) upstream decides to open his build system
2) we move it to
David Bremner brem...@unb.ca
The text of BSD-LBNL-License.doc (blech, I know) is as follows
[...]
The weird parts (as far as I can tell) are
[...]
- the comment about commercial use. This does not seem to be
reflected in the terms of the license.
[...]
Any comments?
I'm not
Peter Dolding oia...@gmail.com wrote: [...]
In fact the head of Microsoft has said That only Novell and other
people who have signed agreements is protected. So all the class
libraries of mono need to move to the restricted section. Hopefully
this will push the .Net wanting people to get
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that
licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in
binary distributions. [...]
I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With
the
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:45:00 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
A. DEFINITIONS
[...]
Original Program means the original version of the software
accompanying this Agreement as released by Recordare LLC, including
source code, object code and
oohay moc. loopy_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes. I don't know much about copyright. But, I would guess that with
a properly written license, that you would append it to a legal
copyright registration along with the work that the license is
covering, and send it to the patent office of copyrights.
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You can
make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size.
Interesting: could you point me at
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:
[...] if it is indeed required that the patent indemnity be
requested then from a patent license perspective, the Mono
implementation should fail Debian Legal's Desert Island and
Dissident tests for DFSG compliance[5] because upstream must
1 - 100 of 1366 matches
Mail list logo
