Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"
Am Donnerstag, den 08.10.2015, 23:39 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli: > Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that > "GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and thus possibly void: > I would not consider software released under such terms as safely > distributable. FWIW, I share this view. - Fabian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
Am Donnerstag, den 29.08.2013, 19:49 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath: Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito: Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it? Any news on this? Rogerio? -- 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/1378717480.15460.0.ca...@kff50.ghi.rwth-aachen.de
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
Hey Rogerio et al., Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito: Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it? Any news on this? - Fabian -- 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/1377798580.2401.0.camel@kff50
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 10:44 +0200 schrieb roucaries bastien: Could you ask also for the fontforge source and not like the postscript font the resulting file ? We should be careful and not request too much at once from them. I once had a short mail with RMS about that topic and the FSF considers fonts in binary formats acceptible, since they can still be edited with font editors. Please note that the .sfd format is not the canonical source format for fonts, but only fontforge's own file format which happens to be text-based. So it's just one possible, though often the prefered, format for fonts. On the other hand, it is not necessary that URW uses fontforge for their font editing, so they might not even be able to provide fonts in its sfd format. - Fabian -- 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/1377599942.29217.6.ca...@kff50.ghi.rwth-aachen.de
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito: Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it? Yes, please do so! Maybe we have some chance of success as a Linux distributor requesting relicensing of one single font (that has already been released to the public anyway, though under different terms). Thank you very much! - Fabian -- 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/1377503459.29272.24.ca...@kff50.ghi.rwth-aachen.de
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
Dear Rogerio et al., Thank you very much for your review. I just sent a letter to the GUST to see how they approached URW to change the license of the Base 35 fonts. Let's hope that they answer soon. this was Tue, 20 Apr 2010. Did you ever get a response to your letter to GUST and has your letter ever been forwarded to URW? What's the outcome of all this? - Fabian -- 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/1377173210.18132.1.ca...@kff50.ghi.rwth-aachen.de
License impact of opencore-amr and vo-aacenc/amrwbenc
[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!] Hi all, I'd like to discuss an issue with you that I have not yet fully understood. It is about the opencore-amr and vo-aacenc/amrwbenc packages, which are licensed under the Apache-2.0 license and which apparently has an impact on the licenses of the software linking against them. AFAIUI the GPL-2 is not compatible with the Apache-2.0 license, but the GPL-3 is. This means, for all software which is released under the terms of GPL-2+ the GPL-3 has to apply once it is linked against a library licensed under Apache-2.0, such as the ones mentioned before. Well, in Debian gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad is linked against vo-aacenc and vo-amrwbenc and gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly is linked against opencore-amr, but according to their respective debian/copyright files, the packages are still released under the terms of the GPL-2+. Is this simply an oversight and should get changed to GPL-3? For the same reason we have a libav-extra package in Debian which provides a libavcodec library linked against the aforementioned libraries. According to its debian/copyright file, the GPL-3 applies to the resulting binary packages. What does this mean for packages linking against this variant of libavcodec? What are the exact license incompatibilities that we want to avoid by providing this variant? Does this mean that a package which is licensed under GPL-2 (not 2+) cannot get linked against the GPL-3'ed libavcodec? Please enlighten me! Best regards, Fabian -- 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/4f3266f6.8030...@greffrath.com
Possible legal problems with Balder 10 (FreeDOS 1.0), although GPL
Dear -legal, I a currently considering to package Balder 10 for Debian. Balder is a single-disk DOS utility distribution, based on FreeDOS [1] and created by the authors of Finnix. I find it quite useful to be able to boot a full DOS from grub, e.g. for firmware upgrades to my mainboard. The problem is that Balder is only released as a binary disk image without sources, even without explicit copyright or license notices. All the binary files on the disk image are taken from the FreeDOS project, which is entirely released under the GPL. The source code for the programs is available in the FreeDOS project, but IIRC it is currently impossible to compile with GCC. Also there is no recipe on how to build the disk image from precompiled binaries either. I hope the thread at the Finnix list brings some light to this issue [2]. There is already a copy (at least a subset) of FreeDOS available in Debian in the dosemu package. AFAIUI it ships both the sources and the precompiled binaries for FreeDOS in the source package, so the requirements of the GPL to make sources available are fullfilled, although the shipped binaries are not recompiled from these sources at build time. The debian/copyright file isn't explicit about this, but this is how I understood the situation. The package is in the contrib section, though, but I don't know why. If I could find a way to recreate the disk image from the precompiled FreeDOS binaries and would ship them and their corresponding sources in the Debian source package (although they are not used to recompile the binaries at build time), would you think this package met the requirements for inclusion in the Debian main section? Thanks, Fabian PS: Preliminary packages can be found here (with a stub debian/copyright): http://debian.greffrath.com/unstable/balder_10-0fab1.dsc [1] http://www.finnix.org/Balder [2] http://lists.colobox.com/pipermail/finnix/2010-January/94.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#370599: ffmpeg: does not support AMR codec
Thanks for raising this up, Andres and Reinhard! Maybe we should add to this discussion that we already enable GPL-only components in the Debian ffmpeg packages, so all the resulting libraries are under GPL (instead of LGPL) [NB: versions 2.X] already. -- Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath Ruhr-Universität Bochum Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT) Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134 D-44780 Bochum Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334 Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227 E-Mail: greffr...@leat.ruhr-uni-bochum.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#370599: ffmpeg: does not support AMR codec
Another BTW: The gst-plugins-ugly0.10 package will have the opencore-amr plugins enabled in the next upload. The maintainer doesn't seem to see any objection with the gstreamer license (which is LGPL2+). slomo? -- Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath Ruhr-Universität Bochum Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT) Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134 D-44780 Bochum Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334 Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227 E-Mail: greffr...@leat.ruhr-uni-bochum.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[libdts] New upstrean version (0.0.5) available, but...
Package: libdts Version: 0.0.2-svn-2 Severity: wishlist Hi all, on the VideoLAN upstream website [1] there is a new release (0.0.5) of libdca available. This is the library source code that builds libdts AFAIK. However, next to the link to the tarball download the following warning can be found: Provisional Warning: DTS Inc. claims that use of libdca software, to decode DTS compressed sound data on a DVD could violate DTS's patent rights. If you are unsure about the legality of using and distributing this code in your country, in particular in the USA, please consult your lawyer before downloading it. Well, we allready have a package of this library in Debian, it's only for an older release (0.0.2). Is it OK to package this library anyway, since it is a decoding library and we allready have a bunch of decoding libraries in Debian (think of libmad and libfaad2). Does anyone know if the patent issue does only apply to the new upstream version or if the older version in Debian is also affected? Cheers, Fabian [1] http://www.videolan.org/developers/libdca.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bring back H.261 encoding
Package: ffmpeg Severity: wishlist Version: 0.svn20080206-1 Hi, according to http://blogs.sun.com/openmediacommons/entry/oms_video_a_project_of and other resources, SUN develops a new codec called OMS, which is a royalty-free codec loosely based on the h.26x codec family. In the FAQ the question asking Why have you started from h.261? is answered with the following reply: H.261 was finalized in 1989, outside the (17-year) patent window. Key tool strategies and prior art were already established in that era. Wouldn't this mean that we are also free to ship the built-in H.261 encoder in ffmpeg packages? Cheers, Fabian -- Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath Ruhr-Universität Bochum Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT) Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134 D-44780 Bochum Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334 Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#423683: msttcorefonts: Windows Vista Fonts available legally for free
Am Montag, den 14.05.2007, 13:25 +0200 schrieb Thijs Kinkhorst: I've reviewed the licence, and I'm afraid it's a bit more bothered than that of the ms core fonts for the web: You may use the software only to view and print files created with Microsoft Office software. You may not use the software for any other purpose.. If I would include this into the msttcorefonts package this would severely limit the possibilities with these core fonts, that are currently free to be used for whatever purpose. Well, I see this point. How about a separate package, maybe 'ttf-vistafonts' or 'msvistacorefonts' which is in no way connected to the 'msttcorefonts' package and shows a debconf warning about the restrictions these fonts are subject to? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITP: rott -- Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins
package: wnpp severity: wishlist Package name : rott Version: 1.0 Upstream Author: Apogee Software, Ltd. URL: http://www.3drealms.com/rott/ (original) http://icculus.org/rott/ (Linux port) License: GPL Description: Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins Rise of the Triad is a high quality, fast scrolling first-person perspective 3D action game. It has destructive enemies and lots of them, an arsenal of weapons from simple pistols to missile launchers, life-preserving armor, traps and ambushes galore. In addition, Rise of the Triad puts most of the other DOOM wannabes to shame. . WARNING: Rise of the Triad features wanton and gratuitous violence! The package will install the GPL'ed game engine and then offer the user to automatically download the shareware data files from ftp.3drealms.com and install them into the filesystem (similar to `quake2-data' or `rocksndiamonds' packages). I have two questions addressed at the debian-legal team: (1) The shareware data files can be found at ftp://ftp.3drealms.com/share/1rott13.zip. Inside the zip file there is a file called `VENDOR.DOC' containing the copyright and licensing terms. As far as I understand the terms it is legally unobjective to automatically download and install the files as long as we do not actively redistribute them. Or are there any traps in the phrasing? (2) The game contains graphical violence. It has an RSAC rating of 4, whatever that means. However, the violence level is adjustable. To avoid problems (in countries that are very sensitive concerning graphical violence in computer games, e.g. Germany), should I hardcode the game to a lower violence level? By the way, the game is on the German `Index' (some kind of nasties list). That means, it must not be sold to underage persons and not even be advertised *in Germany*. However, Quake 2 and Doom are on that list, too. Any advise? Thank you very much! Cheers, Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#412063: ITP: rott -- Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins
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. Rise of the Triad: The HUNT Begins Copyright 1994, 1995 Apogee Software, Ltd. P.O. Box 496389, Garland, TX 75049, TEL: 972-271-1765 (Apogee) BY COPYING, USING OR DISTRIBUTING THIS SHAREWARE PROGRAM, YOU INDICATE YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE TERMS OF THIS vendor.doc. = KEY POINTS = [*] If you want to distribute it in a retail location (such as on a rack), or as part of a hardware or software bundle, or on CD-ROM you must get PRIOR signed written permission from Apogee. Apogee reserves its right to withhold permission. [*] Everyone can -- and is encouraged! -- to copy, upload and generally pass around this Program without charging for it. [*] If you want to distribute it as provided in this Vendor.doc by catalog, advertisement, BBS, on-line service, or direct mail, no written permission is needed. Apogee highly recommends, however, that distribution be made from a copy from Apogee or from one of its authorized sources, such as our home BBS (Software Creations BBS: 508-365-2359) to prevent the sale of older versions. [*] All advertising of the Program must include Apogee in the description. [*] The Program is marked Shareware and contains episode #1. No right is given by this Vendor.Doc to copy, use or distribute any other version, including any version that is registered, or not marked shareware, or that contains any episode other than #1. == LICENSE == [1] DEFINITIONS: Program means Rise of the Triad and its related files, including this one. The Trademarks consists of Apogee, the Apogee comet logo, Rise of the Triad, and The HUNT Begins. [2] OWNERSHIP: Except to the extent expressly licensed, Apogee owns and reserves the exclusive right to distribute the Program, and to use the Trademarks in connection with it. Its content, layout and format are the property of Apogee to the extent permitted by law. [3] GRANT AND CONDITIONS: Apogee grants a non-exclusive license to distribute the Program on IBM compatible media under the Trademarks subject to the following conditions: [A] CONDITIONS FOR ALL DISTRIBUTION [1] All of the Program's files, including this one, as released by us must be included without modification. The following files must always be included to constitute a legal version for shareware distribution: � demo1_3 dmo 08-01-95 1:30p � demo2_3 dmo 08-01-95 1:30p � huntbgin rtc 08-01-95 1:30p � huntbgin rtl 08-01-95 1:30p � huntbgin wad 08-01-95 1:30p � modempck 08-01-95 1:30p � readme exe 08-01-95 1:30p � remote1 rts 08-01-95 1:30p � rott exe 08-01-95 1:30p � rotthelp exe 08-01-95 1:30p � rottipx exe 08-01-95 1:30p � rottser exe 08-01-95 1:30p � setupexe 08-01-95 1:30p � sndsetup exe 08-01-95 1:30p [2] No copyright or trademark information may be removed. [3] You must not [a] distribute any version of the Program with unauthorized changes, such as additional or different levels, or changed characters or mazes; or [b] characterize such versions as an add-on or extension of any Apogee product; or [c] distribute any unauthorized third party utility designed to alter any Apogee game, game level, game episode or saved game. [B] ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IF YOU CHARGE: If your distribution involves a disk or other physical medium, you must also: [1] Clearly market the Program as shareware, which requires (among other things) using try before you buy or similar words on packaging for the Programs. [2] Include Apogee and the comet logo (we encourage use of the 4 color version) on the front cover of the package. [3] Include the your name, address and phone number on the packaging and in any added documentation. This can be imprinted on the package or may be in the form of a label affixed to the box, carton or folder. [4] Any description of the Program included in a re-sellers catalog, sales brochure, on special packaging or handouts, must include An Apogee Game, Released by Apogee or Published by Apogee if the word count of the description is more than 14 words in length. [5] Distribute copies only after the programs on newly created master diskettes have been thoroughly tested. Always use high quality media and duplication technology. [6] Try to sell only the most current version of the Program. [7] Although Apogee discourages the practice, you may add an installation routine if it does not interfere with the proper operation or installation of the Program. [8]
Re: Bug#412063: ITP: rott -- Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins
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 the equivelent clause in the EULA for the non-sharewhare version of the game. (Assuming that a clause like [6][D] is in fact enforceable.) Please note that the source code hast been released on December 20, 2002. This is more than 8 years later than the release of the shareware version which contains the `VENDOR.DOC' file. The original source code is released under the terms of the GPL and can be found at ftp://ftp.3drealms.com/source/rottsource.zip/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ttf-tuffy: The Tuffy Font Family
package: wnpp severity: wishlist Package name: ttf-tuffy Version : 20050130 Upstream Author : Thatcher Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://tulrich.com/fonts/ License : Public Domain Description : The Tuffy Font Family In the tarball http://tulrich.com/fonts/Tuffy-20050130.zip there is no license file, but on top of the webpage there is the following statement: Public Domain Fonts Here are my dabblings in font design. I have placed them in the Public Domain. This is all 100% my own work. Usage is totally unrestricted. If you want to make derivative works for any purpose, please go ahead. I welcome comments constructive criticism. Is this explicitely free enough for inclusion in Debian's main section? May this be the content of a debian/copyright file? Cheers, Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
