Дмитрий Разваров wrote:
On top of debian will run commercial software that implements business
logic. Can you please tell me if there are any legal restrictions on the
use of Debian in such a product?
Debian can be redistributed for a fee (which is what I take you mean by "commercial
On 2021-08-29 11:03 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
The license looks to me like it is saying that anyone distributing the
work does not have to pay a fee to the original author. It does not
prohibit the distributor from imposing fees on end recipients.
Otherwise, the blurb about 'commercial
Jeffrey H. Johnson wrote:
I'm contacting the list to inquire regarding the acceptability
of the following proposed documentation license, as I'd like to
ensure that it will become be an impediment to having
documentation licensed under it added to Debian in the future.
The DPS8M license
Michael Tremer wrote:
But if I would generally say, that I would never try to enforce my license, what
is the point of picking on in the first place?
For the reason listed in
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense
If source code does not carry a license to give users the
Michael Tremer wrote:
This project however was a lot more work than we anticipated and there are some
more challenges to come. We generate no income from working on this at all, but
of
course need to fill our own fridges with food every once in a while. I am not
telling you anything new here
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
| Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are the
| copyright holder for those
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed one
format of images, and there were no images out there in that format, would you
want to see that in Debian? What if there were images in that format, but
in order to get them you'd have to break
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally
commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably illegal) software in
order to run, which is why they fall into contrib.
I
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
We must look at the entire freeness of a work, not just the copyright
freeness.
I think this is fine advice.
The Apple Public Source License (APSL) has a clause that makes licensees
choose between continuing to be an APSL licensee and allowing Apple to
infringe on
Don Armstrong wrote:
As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not available from gnome's
ftp site yet. [Feel free to provide linkage to demonstrate otherwise.]
See http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ for the link to the following file.
$ wget --spider --server-response
Joe Drew wrote:
Probably because Bitstream refuse to operate under any model but this
one (i.e., to not let substandard fonts get used as the official ones),
and they're more interested in getting things done than in blue-sky
idealism?
So you don't really know, you're just guessing? Sticking
Joe Drew wrote:
Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying in exchange for
distributing the
Michael Fedrowitz wrote:
This is the draft license for the final version: [...]
I understand the community is anxious to get their hands on copies of these
fonts, but let's not forget that the license for the final version has not
been released. There is nothing stopping Bitstream from
Jeff Licquia wrote:
Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
The current beta-test license is clearly non-free [...]
Why is GNOME getting involved with non-free software at all? Why not just
get involved when Bitstream is ready to distribute Free Software fonts?
Richard Stallman wrote:
I guess so...but are we really able to do anything with it that
we can't do without it?
I can't see any program Helix is working on that is unique and attractive
for the Free Software community.
We can play Ogg Vorbis data with Free Software. We will probably continue
Don Armstrong wrote:
As a parting note, it is troubling that they call a license version
1.0, and then have a revision date associated with it. The RPSL should
really be refered to as RPSL version 1.0 as of 10/28/2002 or some
such. [Or they should incrememnt the version numbers when they
Richard Stallman wrote:
The Creative Commons licenses are not supposed to be used for software.
Doesn't the Creative Commons site say so? It ought to.
http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3321 makes it clear the Creative
Commons does not intend to get involved with software licensing.
You wrote:
This question still remains: Can I listen and watch to RealAudio- and
RealVideo-files with completely free software, if I install only
RPSL-licenced software from Helix DNA?
There was a debian-legal thread about this already (see
Perhaps I was less than clear before so I'll restate my intention.
I found the entire article interesting because it discusses the additional
reliability that comes with consideration and manifesting assent to an
agreement. Many of us in the Free Software community do a lot of work where
Mark Rafn wrote:
It [Perl's copyright holders] can't retroactively change licenses.
There will always be a free Perl.
It is my understanding that licensees (generally) haven't been given any
consideration in exchange for the software, so a license can be revoked by
the licensor at any time. I,
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
If I grab a random piece of GPL software today and start hacking and tomorrow
the author changes the license the copy I have does not change. This is what
allows projects to fork.
I think what allows GNU GPL-covered programs to be forked is that the GPL
grants
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
A lot of things would break if licences were arbitrarily revocable. I
haven't heard of it happening in practice, and I'm not sure the
consideration argument from contract law has any validity.
Give http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html a read. It was
You wrote:
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
If you share either of these perspectives, then you might also wish to
help restore sanity to modern discussions of intellectual property law by
not referring to allegedly infringing
/alessandro wrote:
The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested.
Yes, specificity is the recommended alternative. The page
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty)
says:
To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or
write
Charles Bloom (via Drew Scott Daniels) wrote:
How about if I add this term at the top :
0. The software may be used or distributed according to the terms of
the GPL (GNU Public License) at the distributor's option.
If you do not wish to adhere to the terms of the GPL, you
Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
* All the material in this file is subject to the Gnu license
version 2.
I think this is ambiguous. Both the GNU GPL or the GNU LGPL have a version
2 revision; the currently in-use and well-known GNU GPL and an older release
of the GNU LGPL as the FSF tells us:
Branden Robinson wrote:
Any other opinions on the above license from my fellow debian-legal geeks?
I have two points to raise.
The license under consideration contains the following language:
Use, copying, modification, merging, publishing, distribution
and/or sale of this software, source
David Given wrote:
Doesn't this make timidity-patches non-free? In fact, surely it's not
distributable at all?
Someone please prove me wrong...
You are correct. The default for copyright is not to be able to distribute
copies at all and not to be able to modify the work amongst other things
In addition to David Given's warning, which I agree with and I find reason
enough to not consider eawpats DFSG-free, I add the following.
Andrew Suffield quoted the license for eawpats:
So, basicly[sic] you can not use the analog drums or the pistol files in any
commercial work. This is out of
All spelling and capitalization in context in the license quotes below.
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I've been searching for public domain fonts, and there are several sites
that I've found. Some of them contain non-free fonts as well, but the
public domain ones are clearly marked.
I'm not sure
Michael Cardenas wrote:
Please review the license below and let me know if it meets the
dfsg. I think it does, but I'm unsure of this clause:
3] A modified font can be included in any non-profit and for-profit
software package as long as it's done free of charge with the
rules above
On 01 Apr 2002 23:18:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Let's give it a week to see if you get a response from your letter.
Later, I replied:
It's been a little over a week now. Did I miss the comment summary? I
didn't notice any on debian-legal.
I'd appreciate it if someone would send
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Anyway I don't care about this. These are O'Reilly's problems.
Aren't they every free documentation user's problem? It seems unwise to me
to encourage users to modify and/or republish or redistribute something
covered by an unclear license by accepting it into Debian.
I inadvertantly posted this to the newsgroup linux.debian.legal not knowing
the gateway between the debian-legal mailing list and linux.debian.legal is
unidirectional (mailing list - newsgroup). My apologies for those of you
who read linux.debian.legal and see this twice.
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
34 matches
Mail list logo
