Re: no need to keep non-copylefted files that way in a copylefted project. (was Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence)
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Paul Jakma wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote: > > > Apparently they’re not qualified in software licenses and copyrights. > > Sorry I have to say that. > > You're a software engineer, with no legal qualifications or experience > listed in your LinkedIn. They are qualified, practicing solicitors. I do not have a LinkedIn account. > If all you're going to do is inject reason-free arguments to your own > authority, then I'll stick with their authority. Reasoned argument have already been given to you multiple times by many people, which you have chosen to ignore. -- Cheers, Andrej
Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence
Hi Paul, On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 14:19, Paul Jakma wrote: > It is - I am advised - not permitted by the GPL and infringing of my > copyright in thise code-base, and also incitement to commit copyright > infringement. As such, the termination clause of the GPL became > applicable to FRR. > > Use and distribution is unlicensed. I’m afraid your understanding of how the GPL works is incorrect. -- Cheers, Andrej
Re: Hacking License
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > Hi, I've just published a new version of the Hacking License that > receipts some of the objections proposed on debian-legal and on > copyleft-next. > > In particular, I have > 1) removed requirement to change the logo (see [1] from Francesco Poli). >That requirements was not there to protect the brand of the authors but >to protect the users from being fooled to use a modified version >instead of the original; That still effectively forbids your software from being packaged. > 2) left requirement to change the name, because the definition of "use" >already allows the users to store a Derived Work in place of the Hack; So if I want to patch a security vulnerability, I have to bikeshed a name? Please no. > 3) clarified the permissions granted to organizations, that can only copy >and/or distribute the Hack (see [2] from Paul Jakma); > 4) slighly improved the Preamble > > The canonical url is still at http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt > (SHA256: 8d1892282d2335d5b9bc3f4656123bc18cbb2ce479def922a896a75005b3d738) > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2018/12/msg2.html > [2] https://bit.ly/2BNJvkE > > I would really appreciate further feedbacks. -- Cheers, Andrej
Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 03:51, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:50:56PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote: > > > >I was going to have a look but got distracted by writing kernel drivers > >â** fascinating stuff :D > >I will try and spend some time this week on this. If not, I'll post an > >update here. > > Thank you Andrej! Very much appreciated :-) I hope this bug contains > all the information you need. > > Yes, they really are, although I must confess the details are a bit > above my head. Kudos for getting to that level of proficiency! By > the way, assuming you're a member of a the Multimedia Team, and are > interested in kernel drivers, are you the Debian guy to contact for > audio interface driver issues (eg: model specific quirks) or wishlist > "please support this new awesome interface or peripheral"? ;-) Haha, I’m just a beginner — this is my first driver, and it’s not related to multimedia (a driver to support a hardware random number generator in U2F Zero). So far this is my fourth patch to the Linux kernel; nevertheless, it’s quite some fun to work with that and see how things work (or not — and crash your system if you’re not careful *or* if you don’t run tests in a qemu). -- Cheers, Andrej
Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license
Hi, On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 20:15 Nicholas D Steeves, wrote: > Update > > Sorry for my deplorable memory and lack of organisation wrt this bug; > I committed some initial work and then forgot about it. Given my work > schedule for Oct and Nov it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent > the scheduled autoremoval. If someone else would like to fix it asap > please go ahead. Otherwise I anticipate being able to find the time > to work on this after the 28th of Nov. > > I'll go ahead and file a bug asking for confirmation of the license > for contributors to debian/*, because this information is not > contained in old-style copyright format and I'm only familiar with > machine readable copyright format 1.0 > I was going to have a look but got distracted by writing kernel drivers — fascinating stuff :D I will try and spend some time this week on this. If not, I'll post an update here. -- Cheers, Andrej >
Re: DFSG-compatibility of a overly short license [tensorflow dependency]
On 20 August 2018 at 08:24, Andrej Shadura wrote: > On 20 August 2018 at 03:24, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> Lumin dijo [Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 01:07:54PM +]: >>> Hi debian-legal, >>> >>> The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing >>> because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified. >>> >>> > https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE >>> > >>> > Copyright(C) 1997,2001 Takuya OOURA (email: oo...@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp). >>> > You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and >>> > without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package. >>> >>> Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible? >>> It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete. >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >> >> Almost, I would say, but IMO most definitively not. >> >> It allows people to modify the code, but NOT distribute the >> modifications (there is emphasis in ORIGINAL). > > I don’t think that’s the intention, and it is probably covered by > "modify <…> for any purpose" (e.g. modify for the purpose of further > redistribution). The homepage of the project says (www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~ooura/fft.html): > You may use, copy, modify and distribute this code for any > purpose (include commercial use) and without fee. Please > refer to this package when you modify this code. In my opinion it is quite clear it is not disallowing redistributing modifications. -- Cheers, Andrej
Re: DFSG-compatibility of a overly short license [tensorflow dependency]
On 20 August 2018 at 03:24, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Lumin dijo [Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 01:07:54PM +]: >> Hi debian-legal, >> >> The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing >> because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified. >> >> > https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/LICENSE >> > >> > Copyright(C) 1997,2001 Takuya OOURA (email: oo...@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp). >> > You may use, copy, modify this code for any purpose and >> > without fee. You may distribute this ORIGINAL package. >> >> Is this a free software license? Is it DFSG-compatible? >> It doesn't tell me any detail and looks incomplete. >> >> Thanks in advance. > > Almost, I would say, but IMO most definitively not. > > It allows people to modify the code, but NOT distribute the > modifications (there is emphasis in ORIGINAL). I don’t think that’s the intention, and it is probably covered by "modify <…> for any purpose" (e.g. modify for the purpose of further redistribution). -- Cheers, Andrej
