On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 22:33 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:15:32 +1200 Adam Warner wrote:
Hi all,
[several comments]
Some more press coverage:
How Sun's Java got into Debian
([Front] Posted May 24, 2006 20:24 UTC (Wed) by corbet)
http://lwn.net/Articles/184942
Hi all,
Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems:
JDK on GNU/Linux: Something Wonderful
16 May 2006
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something
Responds that it's OK to distribute along with GCJ, GNU/Classpath and
so on - that was one of the
On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:17:52 -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If Sun doesn't fix the license (and I don't think it is our work to fix
The license is good enough for Debian (ftpmasters took their decisions).
There's no fix to require, but it would be good to continue working them
to enhance
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:32 +, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
Dear All,
The Gentium font (http://scripts.sil.org/gentium) has been re-released
under the SIL Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL).
This is excellent news as there are few free/open-source fonts that
cover the Latin,
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 03:56, Camm Maguire wrote:
It would be nice for those in the know/responsible for Debian's legal
understanding to put forth a consensus on this. Others have suggested
the possible usefulness of contacting others on the committee. I have
a call into one such person.
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 07:50, Camm Maguire wrote:
Greetings! Can anyone comment on the DFSG status of the material at:
ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/cl
? Please cc: me directly.
Hi Camm. This is an earlier answer from the X3J13 Project Editor, Kent M
Pitman. It is as definitive as you can
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 08:47, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
Hello.
I've been thinking about packaging netPantzer (strategy game) but
it depends on PhysicsFS which is absent in Debian archive
(http://www.icculus.org/physfs/).
So I'd like to package it too but this software has got
be exempted from being considered
release critical for sarge by the release manager. This is expressed
by tagging the report sarge-ignore; this should not be done without
explicit authorisation from the release manager.
Regards,
Adam Warner
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 06:05, Adam Warner wrote:
tag 212895
thanks
Note that the sarge-ignore tag has now been removed. I located the
correct syntax [tag 212895 - sarge-ignore] in a document referenced from
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer, i.e.
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 19:54, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
I believe this license is DFSG compliant, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are
similar to some GPL sections. I wonder about section 3.6 as well.
Thanks in advance for looking at this lengthy license.
I see a problem. Nokia has explicitly excluded
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 01:50, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Thanks for your analysis. I appreciate it, Adam. I'm hoping to package
for Debian the Common Lisp wilbur-rdf library
[http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net].
Would you declare, then, that the Nokia license section 2.d3 violates
the derived
Someone may be able to locate the OSI discussion about the NOKOS
(perhaps the issue was discussed and my interpretation is incorrect):
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
This is the actual licence for the software Kevin described:
http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net/docs/LICENSE-NOKOS.html
Eeek! The Nokia licence is similar to the Mozilla Public License 1.1
(not 1.0) which is why there is a dearth of specific commentary on the
Nokia version.
The MPL 1.0 states:
2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free,
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:19, Joe Buck wrote:
My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the
GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our
developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with
things like doxygen-generated libstdc++
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:48, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Hi,
Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Wouter, it is my understanding that Debian interprets the Social
Contract and the Free Software Guidelines based upon consensus that
develops upon
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that
has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on
the glibc mailing list:
Hi all,
[message BCCed to aj]
I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the
DFSG: http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt
Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 13:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
[message BCCed to aj]
I wanted you all to be aware how Sarge is treating Documentation and the
DFSG: http://people.debian.org/~ajt
On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 16:32, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There are cases, when we can easely distinguish, is it documentation or
program. For example, emacs info files are definitely documentation.
And what if a user wishes to link documentation into code? Do you
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeu 07/08/2003 à 11:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
In case anybody's interested, I've just commited the GPLv2 'LICENSE'
into CVS,
to avoid further useless arguments.
Could you please explain how the
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:23, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Adam Warner wrote:
What was a substantial freedom as part of GNU philosophy--the freedom
to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play,
without even mentioning that they exist--is now only useful to hermits
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:51, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:19, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
obligations apply upon source code distribution.
I'm puzzled
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 03:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
...
I think this era isn't very different from that of 15 years ago. RMS,
and the FSF, are spooked by the success of web service providers.
They didn't seem very upset by modems, remote terminals, and
timesharing systems, though. I think
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 13:51, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan,
Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in
derived work without written permission.
IIUC, it is absolutely not DFSG-compliant, is it?
It means that
It has been pointed out on debian-devel that your mplayer package
includes DVD Content Scrambling System decoding!:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01827.html
(Refer libmpdvdkit2/*css*)
I hope you understand how serious this is and how many problems you
would have
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 01:41, A Mennucc1 wrote:
sorry
last time there was a discussion, it was mainly on licenses and
copyrights, and I was so focused on them that I didn't think
of the CSS code
I will prepare and test an 'mplayer' without the above code
(a la xine) and come back soon
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 00:49, A Mennucc1 wrote:
first of all, thanks a lot for the careful reading
I will incorporate all change that you mention
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:03:56AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
* Could you rewrite this paragraph in a way that is less disparaging
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 12:02, Walter Landry wrote:
This is a summary of what you have to do. The detailed requirements
are in section 4 of the GFDL. Note that this all has to be _in_ the
manpage. This may or may not make the manpage useless. You also have
to include the Transparent version
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 06:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 06:05, Dylan Thurston wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam Warner wrote:
Branden, perhaps the term information disclosure would better suit
you/us than privacy? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot
mandate information disclosure of anything
Hi Artur R. Czechowski,
Hello
I would like to package a php4-rrdtool from wnpp[1]. I noticed that this
software has IMO incomplete licence. Full README file is available at:
http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/pub/contrib/php4-rrdtool-1.03.txt
Interesting part about
Oops, now posting my reply to the list as I originally intended...
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 18:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Frankly this claim that it is always better to keep the manual
separate--as if it is always better to keep
of documentation and software engineering in order to push
the mandatory inclusion of your political texts.
Regards,
Adam Warner
Hi Branden Robinson,
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 19:42, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:14:44PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including
the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour
the DOE's requirement while also
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard
Hi Dariush Pietrzak,
Hello,
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
What package? By whom?
As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
so what should one do with this?
Are all package maintainers required to do
Good news everyone,
Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including
the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour
the DOE's requirement while also not modifying the GPL. The text should
note that it is not part of the licence.
Below is my suggested
by a software license.
I am also mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to see if they would like to provide
some input. I hope follow ups will be made to the Debian legal mailing list.
Regards,
Adam Warner
(Sorry if this is a dupe. The news.gmane.org news-to-email gateway may
be having problems so I've replied in the traditional way from my email
client)
Hi Sam Hartman,
Is there some reason you cannot include that paragraph in the text that
invokes the GPL in every source file? Would that not
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
This is freeware; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
ask?).
I rather ask and take the ridicule, if any, than brooding over legal
implications I'm not very likely to understand. I do have severe trouble
to parse legalese and licenses, maybe I'm just a few
Hello James Miller,
I think I had compiled a user friendly index comparing some various
jurisdictions a couple years ago I could dig up if it's useful to you
guys.
I have also been following this discussion with interest. I'm attempting
to understand the copyright laws of the various
Hi Roberto Sanchez,
I came across the following while reading the wxWindows documentation
(from the wxwin2.4-doc package):
We also acknowledge the author of XFIG, the excellent Unix drawing tool,
from the source of which we have borrowed some spline drawing code. His
copyright is included
Hi Georg C. F. Greve,
As to the question whether or not software and documentation should be
treated alike, I'd like to say that I am very much in favor of a more
differentiated approach.
Mixing things that are in truth very different is one of the worst
effects of the intellectual
Hi all,
In 1986/87 John Peterson (now of Haskell fame) wrote a Lisp to Postscript
compiler called PLisp. In 1992 he packaged and distributed it after
posting this 7 April message to comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.postscript (7
April is in the message ID. GMT time was 6 April):
I wrote:
The Lisp files were copied to create the tarball that same day, 7 April
1992. 17 of those files contain this copyright notice:
;;; Copyright (c) 1987 John Peterson
;;; Permission is given to freely modify and distribute this code ;;;
so long as this copyright notice is
Hi Russell Nelson,
Glenn Maynard writes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00448.html
Thanks.
Why not change the DFSG?
There have been several good reasons explained for leaving the DFSG
as a set of human guidelines, rather than a word-strict
49 matches
Mail list logo
