Based on the recent discussion of the "Hack" typeface, I have become
curious.
Debian ships fonts in "main" where the source package contains only .ttf
files. ttf-bitstream-vera is an example of such a package.
Are ".ttf" files "source files" under the DFSG? (Surely they are not
the source
Here is the text of the license found at
> [2] https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
## License
Hack Copyright 2015, Christopher Simpkins with Reserved Font Name "Hack".
Bitstream Vera Sans Mono Copyright 2003 Bitstream Inc. and licensed under the
Bitstream Vera License
I have become aware of Apache's decision about whether this license
meets their own freeness requirements, which of course are different
than Debian's:
Apparently,
https://github.com/facebook/zstd
https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE
https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/PATENTS
Contents of .../LICENSE of this date:
BSD License
For Zstandard software
Copyright (c) 2016-present, Facebook, Inc. All rights reserved.
The contents of the "patents" file in "freeport" is:
Additional Grant of Patent Rights Version 2
"Software" means the freeport software distributed by Facebook, Inc.
Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each
At least one package in Debian main, xombrero, has files listed in
debian/copyright as "License: ISC". (it is orphaned, but the reasons are
unrelated to the license)
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/x/xombrero/unstable_copyright
Jeff
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:18:41AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause
> (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore
> the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from
> the terms when
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a
> somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial
> exception" [1].
>
> [1] https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Hello,
Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL)
but not as in beer?
Debian contains software in main which is covered by the AGPLv3. In
2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote on behalf of the ftpmasters and
Files with this text were distributed in old GNU gettext
(gettext-0.10.40/po/Makefile.in.in:# This file file be copied and)
It looks like this odd license text has been corrected in the file
Makefile.in.in from GNU gettext 0.19.4, and possibly in earlier versions.
# Makefile for PO directory in
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:00:07PM -0500, Pablo Duboue wrote:
Hi,
I recently learn to use this handy hexdump tool, xxd. It is
distributed as part of vim-common and it has the following license:
(c) 1990-1997 by Juergen Weigert
jnwei...@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
In the thread ITP: libressl, the OpenSSL linking exception was
discussed. This is of great interest to people who would think that
LibreSSL may be a long-term viable fork of OpenSSL, because many
statements of the OpenSSL exception do not explicitly to permit linking
with modified and/or renamed
Apache License v2.0 section 4.4 also allows somebody to make a trivial
change to the covered source code and require notice wherever such
third-party notices normally appear; You may add Your own attribution
notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an
addendum to the
I doubt it is possible to distribute any software for common x86 PCs in
compliance with your proposed license.
For instance, hypothetical FPL-licensed software cannot be distributed
for Linux, because Linux relies on ACPI which is a part of the
proprietary system BIOS.
Linux also depends on a
I don't think that the desert island thought experiment has anything
to do with web services.
The purpose of the desert island test is to show why software like
postcardware (send me a postcard if you use my software) is not Free
Software.
While the situation is not exactly the same, consider
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a
torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to
e.g., an FTP REST or an HTTP byte-range request.
It's
I do not understand why you wish to remove from the debian archive
software that debian users may rely on (as far as I can see from the
original report, not everyone's use of the version Debian ships hits the
reported problem), just because of a possible license problem in a
*different version* of
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:48:47AM +0300, Michael Gvirtzman wrote:
Hello,
1. Could you please review the below *Licence* of the *Golden Rules
Organizer http://www.golden-rules.org/* *freeware* for suiting Debian
rules:
http://www.golden-rules.org/LICENSE.txt
Full text as of this date:
18 matches
Mail list logo
