Herbert Fortes (2016-07-05):
> I am doing a QA for dvbackup[0]. It is an old package,
> but does not has a repository, so I will copy/paste.
>
> [0] - https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dvbackup.html
>
> Files: logo.xcf
> minilogo.ppm
> minilogo.c
> Copyright: Larry Ewing
> License:
Ian Jackson (2014-08-21):
> Draft question for SFLC:
> (there are no changes since v3 apart from fixes to the numbering of
> some section cross-references)
>
>
> Some members of the Debian project have some concerns about the PHP
> licence. These worries are dismissed by other members and by re
Paul Wise (10/01/2011):
> The Google translation indicates "Excerpts from the international
> standard ISO 31-11: 1992"
>
> I doubt either of these are distributable.
Apparently, usual rules apply:
http://www.iso.org/iso/support/copyright.htm
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatu
Francesco Poli (24/02/2010):
> Or maybe they are jokes that look like non-free clauses, I am not
> sure which one makes more sense or better describes the situation...
Looks like upstream clarified the “joke status”?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=18;bug=533555
Mraw,
KiBi.
MJ Ray (20/01/2010):
> Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?
I reached a massive count of 42 binary packages this way:
| k...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/binary
| $ grep -l -i cecill */copyright | wc -l
(I know about ../source, but not all packages have debfiles/c
Charles Plessy (02/07/2009):
> […] may I suggest the BOLA license, that is a politically correct
> version of the WTFPL?
>
> http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/
Quoting it:
| The BOLA text
| Here's the text. I usually place it in a file named LICENSE in the top
directory of the project.
| It's compos
Francesco Poli (15/05/2009):
> > Please cc:me, I am not subscribed to d-legal, TIA.
> Done.
Ditto.
> > From src/glamo-driver.c:
> >
> >
> > Authors: Alan Hourihane,
> > Michel Dänzer,
> >
> > No license
> I think this file should be investigate
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (05/11/2008):
> You can't make something PD in Germany, that just doesn't work with
> our laws.
>
> You should also NOT create new licenses / new words for things, that
> makes it just unneccessarily complex, for example if people want to
> bundle stuff together. E
Tim Heckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (25/07/2008):
> I've been a long time user of Debian GNU/Linux, and I can recognize
> that logo anywhere. Well, I was watching a local news station, and
> noticed this commerical using the Debian GNU/Linux logo.
> http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.ind
Hi,
since I've got upstreams (having copied some code from others, that's
why they aren't spelling it out directly) that aren't convinced that
having the rights to copy, use, modify is insufficient to meet the DFSG.
From what I recall having read during NM, I've never seen any discussion
comparing
anager
follows to the letter the proposed templates.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgp6X6ACY0Ftb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 22/01/2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Many thanks for your review, it confirms my initial doubts. It's
> been forwarded upstream and dual-licensing is underway.
Some background: upstream A uses upstream B's code. B accepted the
idea of dual-licensing, but nothing happened yet
n 13 may be a freeness issue.
> The license does not seem to be GPL compatible, although it is very
> clear that the GPL v2 was studied in the preperation of this licence.
Many thanks for your review, it confirms my initial doubts. It's been
forwarded upstream and dual-licens
sions (s/html/txt/ in URL).
1. http://cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL-B_V1-en.html
2. http://cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL-C_V1-en.html
3. http://cecill.info/licences.fr.html
I'd be glad if those licenses (in particular CeCILL-C) could be
reviewed.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
14 matches
Mail list logo
