Re: Does this license meet DSFG?

2010-04-17 Thread Joe Smith
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote in message news:mp+abdfeudxlf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk... In message 20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work licensed under

Re: Skype/Facebook trademark logos in Debian packages

2009-11-29 Thread Joe Smith
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote in message news:20091125220338.gb24...@gwolf.org... Mike Hommey dijo [Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:30:58AM +0100]: More than the trademark fair use problem, there is one of a license one: Are these logo really free ? (keep in mind that for example, the Firefox

Re: Looking for +info about the license of a new package: Ossec

2009-11-03 Thread Joe Smith
Jose Antonio Quevedo wrote: [snip] The license can be founded here: http://www.ossec.net/main/license/ What can you tell me about it? I find the the fact that they belive including the program in a propritary installer executable creates a derivitive work worrysome. Normally that is

Re: The Clearthought Software License, Version 2.0

2009-06-22 Thread Joe Smith
jochen georges gnu...@gnugeo.de wrote in message news:200906221753.51922.gnu...@gnugeo.de... /* * * * The Clearthought Software License, Version 2.0 * * Copyright (c) 2001 Daniel Barbalace. All rights reserved. * * Project

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-29 Thread Joe Smith
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote in message news:20090410200117.gb30...@thorin... On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:15:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:38:33 -0400 Hubert Figuiere wrote: [...] Except that the original files don't have any notice. For those that did,

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

2009-04-15 Thread Joe Smith
Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net wrote: So one could even make a proprietary compiler using C as an intermediate langage, and GCC for the final stage, I guess. Comeau C++'s GNU/Linux builds do exactly that. (In general it uses the local C compiler as a slightly higher level assembler. This

Re: Combining Apache with GPL in one package - Re: libxdoclet-java_1.2.3-2_i386.changes REJECTED

2009-03-30 Thread Joe Smith
Florian Grandel wrote: I have to make a correction from my earlier post. I said: core library licensed under GPLv2 This is not true. See [1] for the core xdoclet license which doesn't seem to be any standard license. The licence you linked to is the standard 3-clause BSD. They even

Re: FLTK License

2009-03-29 Thread Joe Smith
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote in message news:49c8da6f.7050...@debian.org... 4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor do you have to identify the FLTK license in your program or

Re: Creative Commons CC0

2009-03-23 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I'd hardly call that “the whole point” of the licenses; if anything, it's a property of how they're used. Fair enough It's also a pretty poor practice: it makes access to that specific document online a pre-condition to knowing the license terms

Re: Creative Commons CC0

2009-03-22 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney wrote Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using an

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-22 Thread Joe Smith
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote in message news:20090322071908.98b07b...@violet.rahul.net... First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing. http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-21 Thread Joe Smith
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US. Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing. IANAL, IANADD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

2009-03-13 Thread Joe Smith
Alexander Block wrote: MJ Ray wrote: There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.

Re: RFC: Transitive Grace Period Public Licence

2009-02-20 Thread Joe Smith
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: in which I dare OSI to sue me for describing TGPPL as Open Source: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:531:200902:ofpndmgcgmbhbmimpkpe The OSL copyright holder is Lawrence Rosen, not OSI, so I think it is Lawrence Rosen, not OSI, who could sue you.

Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment

2009-02-16 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote in message news:874oyuq3ki@benfinney.id.au... Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes: This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to copyright That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as defined

Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment

2009-02-15 Thread Joe Smith
does the right thing here). This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to copyright, even the variable names and whitespaceing are as non-creative as possible. (Although I would recomend reformatting the whitespace used to be more readable). Use it and be happy. Joe

Re: Which license am I looking for?

2009-01-23 Thread Joe Smith
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes it a replacement

Re: ITP: ssreflect -- small scale reflection extension for the Coq proof assistant

2008-12-12 Thread Joe Smith
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: I think we've consensus on software that uses CeCILL (upgradeable to GPL, so meets DFSG) and we've discussed CeCILL-C, but what do we think of B? My searches didn't find much discussion of it here, or any packages in the archive using it yet. A copy follows.

Re: deluge and GeoIP database license

2008-11-20 Thread Joe Smith
Cristian Greco wrote: Hi all, I'm working for a new upload of deluge[0] (bittorrent client). The source tarball includes a GeoLite Country (binary) database by MaxMind, which should be distributed using the license[1] below. I've found that ktorrent (CCing to pkg-kde-extras, please CC your

Re: licensing issue at APT

2008-11-12 Thread Joe Smith
Andre Felipe Machado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, The most recent source package could be downloaded from http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/apt.html For convenience, attached is the file to be analyzed (COPYING). Please, what are the possible consequences of

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

2008-10-09 Thread Joe Smith
The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth making. Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try to make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happens

Re: geotrans license: asking for advice

2008-10-09 Thread Joe Smith
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Roberto Lumbreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi... I have packaged a nice software called geotrans (ITP #468918): http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/geotrans/ whose author is NGA (US National Geospatial-Intelligence

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

2008-09-28 Thread Joe Smith
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The key words here are what totally free means, and what use means. If totally free means you have the freedom to do anything you wish with these works then that's a different meaning entirely than you don't have to pay

Re: DFSG compatibility of the Poetic License

2008-09-25 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maximilian Gaß [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These rights, on this notice, rely. Is this meant to have some legal meaning? Or should we ignore it? The poem is obviously a form of translation of a simple permisive license

Re: Glade no longer generates C source code

2008-08-31 Thread Joe Smith
Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes wrote: I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the note DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade. which indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I checked if these

Re: Misuse of Debian logo for City Tourism

2008-07-26 Thread Joe Smith
Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cyril Brulebois wrote: Will you please respond to my E-Mail ASAP. I am curious as to whether this promotion, for self-profit, is a valid use. I personally do not like the Debian GNU/Linux Logo being used for the profit,

Re: Conflicting license for Adeona?

2008-07-26 Thread Joe Smith
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Finney wrote: I don't think is intended for [use Foo, Bar, Baz] only is a restriction upon the recipient. It states the *intent*, but isn't phrased as a condition or restriction on what the recipient actually may

Re: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

2008-07-12 Thread Joe Smith
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] All, The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see announcement below. As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG terms. The intention is to allow code-like portions

Re: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

2008-07-12 Thread Joe Smith
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] All, The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see announcement below. As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG terms. The intention is to allow code-like portions

Re: review of package inform

2008-05-05 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jan Christoph Nordholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is the archive granting rights without the authors' consent here? Or does such downloading fall under

Re: review of package inform

2008-05-05 Thread Joe Smith
Jan Christoph Nordholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... I've extracted my current license list from my WIP inform package to - http://www-pool.math.tu-berlin.de/~hesso/deb/inform_copyright_list I guess it will be no problem to reach at least the more prominent RAIF regulars like Emily Short, Roger

Re: review of package inform

2008-05-04 Thread Joe Smith
Jan Christoph Nordholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, just what I thought - but would it be different if I converted the package to download those files during postinst, similar to flash- plugin? Does that README's free for personal use apply at all, so I could

Re: Inc. logo in game data

2008-05-03 Thread Joe Smith
Wen-Yen Chuang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, The beneath-a-steel-sky and flight-of-the-amazon-queen are two packages in Debian main/games. I opened ITP #478543 for the game lure-of-the-temptress. Its license

Re: Review of license

2008-04-28 Thread Joe Smith
I agree with Francesco Poli that the license, while not ideal, is acceptable. Using 3a (licencing the changes under the same license, or any compatible licence, and distributing them through the Debian mirror network definately satisfies that requirement. End users can choose 3b if they will

Re: IBM Public license compatibility

2008-04-17 Thread Joe Smith
Alan Woodland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for OpenDx currently doesn't have any

Re: Nikto license on data files

2008-04-05 Thread Joe Smith
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. Another question: nikto has been removed but is still present in stable. It contains the same non-free data. Since the package has been

Re: Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-05 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:07:40 -0500 Joe Smith wrote: [...] Well it is no less free than the MPL. IMO, the MPL does *not* meet the DFSG. That is exactly why I phrased it as no less free than. Nothing was added

Re: GPL code concatenation

2008-03-05 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Suppose you have a chunk of code that implements initialisation of an MSDOS executable. If you concatenate a payload (raw code) after it, you obtain a .exe that runs your code (at a

Re: Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-02 Thread Joe Smith
Francis Tyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello there, I'd like to package piece of software for Debian called VISL CG (Constraint Grammar). The licence file (see Appendix A.) is a bit strange, and although it states it is derived from the MPL, I'd like to get

Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders

2008-02-21 Thread Joe Smith
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Do 21 Feb 2008 10:25:01 CET schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: IMHO the patches sent to a upstream author which doesn't patch

Re: Intel microcode CPU (#3)

2008-02-13 Thread Joe Smith
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello! Now microcode as a new license Backgroud: In 2000 (or 2001) we already discussed about license of the microcode, and I convinced Intel to change license. But also the second license was not so clear, and a

Re: non-free application linked to Qt.

2008-01-31 Thread Joe Smith
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear debian-legal, A non-free program for which I maintain a package has changed its UI toolkit from lesstif to Qt. The program is free for non-commercial use, and upstream payed for a Qt licence. I understand that

Re: web hosting providers' modified .debs

2008-01-28 Thread Joe Smith
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Florian Weimer wrote: | You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not | convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains | in force. You may convey covered works to others for

Re: Bug#461659: warsow: New version of warsow possibly non-distributable.

2008-01-23 Thread Joe Smith
Andres Mejia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, I'm sorry, I forgot to ask about other concerns that myself and another member of the Debian Games team had. You should have been more clear that you were concerned not about freeness, but about the ability to

Re: Licensing exception to increase product compatibility

2008-01-21 Thread Joe Smith
Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I am the original author of ModSecurity (http://www.modsecurity.org), an open source web application firewall, which is licensed under GPLv2. ModSecurity was acquired by Breach Security in late 2006. I joined the

Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games

2008-01-19 Thread Joe Smith
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Joe Smith wrote: That is not sheet music, but more of a raw storage of notes, timings, and durations (not too unlike a midi file). What else is sheet music but a storage form of notes, timings

Re: Review of CeCILL-C? (This is not â?oplainâ ? CeCILL.)

2008-01-19 Thread Joe Smith
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, it looks like one can't help writing new licenses, so in addition to CeCILL, CeCILL-B[1] (said to be BSD-like) and CeCILL-C[2] (said to be adapted to software components) have been published[3]. Note that French

Re: patents on Frets on Fire, Pydance, StepMania and such games

2008-01-18 Thread Joe Smith
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote: 1. A game system comprising: an input apparatus which is manipulated by a player; performance data memory device which stores performance data stipulating a series of

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

2008-01-15 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] IV. Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities; Indemnification [...] 4. You shall indemnify, defend and hold all (co)authors of This Product, their agents and associates, and applicable copyright/trademark owners,

Re: PSI('s icons) license vs EKG and EKG2

2007-12-13 Thread Joe Smith
Marcin Owsiany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [0] My explanation of the problem | | I had a look at the COPYING file in the root of PSI source tree [1], which, | due to lack of any more specific licensing information seems to be the | binding license for

Re: JOGL in Debian

2007-12-09 Thread Joe Smith
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:14PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is *incompatible* with french law?!? I gather that one reason for some of the changes in GPL v2

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

2007-12-08 Thread Joe Smith
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Including that notice in the package long description would certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up such as to allow us to include a

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

2007-12-05 Thread Joe Smith
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient

Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] STIX Fonts Beta Test Version Ready for Download

2007-11-04 Thread Joe Smith
My reading of this says that any modified version cannot be called STIX or any confusingly similar name. You may add or change characters. You may remove characters but if you do so you must note that the font does not contain the full set of characters that STIX had. Well that is at least my

Re: Build system GPLv3+, *.(c|h) LGPLv2.1+ -- What is the library copyright?

2007-10-29 Thread Joe Smith
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Andreas Metzler: I think that the resulting library /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 does not inherit the licenses of the build-system, and ends up as LGPLv2.1+ both in 0.3.x and 1.x. Can you confirm this? You should ask the

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

2007-10-20 Thread Joe Smith
this message in no way is a statement on behalf of the Project. (Although I suspect many would agree with my sentiments on this issue). I am also not a Lawyer, ergo, this is not Legal Advice. Joe Smith PS: It looks like we may be allowing some stuff under the CC v3 licenses into Debian, despite

Re: Which GPL for Ogg Frog?

2007-10-04 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Music in digital form, being digitially-stored information, *is* software :-) As Eben Moglen said, it's foolish to try to distinguish different freedoms for a bitstream depending on how those bits happen to be interpreted

Re: Which GPL for Ogg Frog?

2007-09-29 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Music in digital form, being digitially-stored information, *is* software :-) As Eben Moglen said, it's foolish to try to distinguish different freedoms for a bitstream depending on how those bits happen to be interpreted

Re: unauthorized use of debian logo?

2007-08-31 Thread Joe Smith
Michael Pobega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:18:37AM -0400, Quintin Riis wrote: Whilst searching google for a linux monopoly clone, I found the following site that appears to be using the

Re: unauthorized use of debian logo?

2007-08-30 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quintin Riis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whilst searching google for a linux monopoly clone, I found the following site that appears to be using the debian logo in their artwork. http://www.adultmatchmaker.biz/ Yes,

Re: Debian Linux ECCN-Codes?

2007-08-28 Thread Joe Smith
Diehl Markus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, on one of our VoIP GSM gateways we use Debian/GNU Linux. For export issues according to US law we require a so called ECCN code for the gateway. The ECCN code of our VoIP GSM gateway will be determined by the ECCN

Re: Exporting Issues related with US laws

2007-08-20 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dererk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The developer of a software I'm about to package, faced the problem of exporting cryptography libraries outside the US, he finally turned out his view and he will make his main repository

Re: us crypto export regulations

2007-08-15 Thread Joe Smith
Pat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] How would the US export restrictions be applicable to a custom debian cdrom? The cdrom would have no additional crypto functionality than what is already available in debian and there would be no changes to the source code, so how

Re: Question about patent notice in copyright header of package exempi

2007-08-15 Thread Joe Smith
Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and a copy of it: == This package is based off Adobe XMP SDK 4.1.1, distributed under the BSD license reproduced thereafter for convenience and

Re: GFDL and cover texts

2007-08-07 Thread Joe Smith
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 07/08/07, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: : Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands of words nonfree? Because it is non-free.

Re: uploading GPLv3 packages

2007-07-31 Thread Joe Smith
You are always free to upload a package, as long as the Legal file documents all known legal issues (and it is in fat legal for you to distribute it). The job of determining if the work meets the DFSGs belongs to the ftpmasters. Debian-legal exists to discuss the issues, which is hoped to

Re: Questions about the Unicode Terms of Use

2007-07-31 Thread Joe Smith
Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I would like to package [0] a software that contains a file [1] from unicode.org. The copyright / license notice is : Copyright (C) 1999-2005, ASMUS, Inc. All Rights

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-21 Thread Joe Smith
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1) The MPL requires you to make the source code to your modifications available for six-to-twelve months electronically _or_ to make it available on the same media as the executable version. We do the latter. In this

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Joe Smith
I agree with AJ's statements and add only this: Apt is priority important. That is the same priority as openssl. Apt has relativly few revese dependencies (it appears to have less than openssl does). But libapt is without any doubt a system library under the GPLv3. It accompanies apt which is

Re: GPL v3 app with copied GPLv2 or later source and linked against LGPL-2 or later libraries

2007-07-12 Thread Joe Smith
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes All the gnucash source code used in gpe-cash is GPLv2 or later. The Gtk frontend for gpe-cash is GPLv3 or later. I am therefore using my option to

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-12 Thread Joe Smith
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello Shane, Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will be released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose

Re: GPL v3 app with copied GPLv2 or later source and linked against LGPL-2 or later libraries

2007-07-10 Thread Joe Smith
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] All the gnucash source code used in gpe-cash is GPLv2 or later. The Gtk frontend for gpe-cash is GPLv3 or later. I am therefore using my option to distribute and modify the gnucash source code under a later version of

Re: whichwayisup: CC-v3.0 licenses do not meet the DFSG

2007-07-09 Thread Joe Smith
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] | e. For the avoidance of doubt: | | i. Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those | jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through | any statutory or compulsory licensing

Re: Jagged Alliance 2 Source Code

2007-07-03 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not Debian related, but I think you are the ones who know best about licensing issues. This list, debian-legal, is a resource for Debian developers to determine whether a

Re: Final text of GPL v3

2007-07-02 Thread Joe Smith
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Francesco Poli: To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of the SHING GPL. SHING GPL ? Sun HP IBM Nokia Google, major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries of this clause: | You may

Re: Final text of GPL v3

2007-06-30 Thread Joe Smith
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have to do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires source code availability? How does making the source code available

Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3

2007-06-02 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, a new Last Call Draft of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 31 May 2007 by the FSF. The full text of this fourth draft can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html My comments on the draft

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-06-01 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am sorry for not being clear enough: I meant to refer to the *thread* that started from your message, not just to your message. I now realize that, unfortunately, the rest thread was on the next month and hence is not

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-05-31 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from -legal I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. See

Re: Bug#383316: Please vet this modified CC license for uploading FoF music to non-free (was: Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto?)

2007-05-31 Thread Joe Smith
Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/15/07, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... How about: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly

Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license

2007-04-18 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks. In the US: The word Debian is a regestered trademark of SPI. Or more accurately, the word Debian is a trademark registered by SPI on behalf of the Debian

Re: BSD MIT licenses compatible?

2007-04-13 Thread Joe Smith
Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 4/14/07, Suraj N. Kurapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BSD is not compatible with the MIT license because it has an additional condition (i.e. you cannot use copyright holder's names to

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

2007-04-03 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: [...] I think this stems from source code not requireing a patent license. So if the source code is available, the patent can be bypassed by having the consumer

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

2007-04-02 Thread Joe Smith
The following is intended to be a compression of your comments down into the most important points (generally, the areas you are concerned about), to aid further discussion. As well as some responses to your comments. (I had to manually fix the quoting, so apologies if I mess it up somewhere).

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-28 Thread Joe Smith
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exactly, and in some cases an author/maintainer *may* prefer to modify a lossy-compressed form directly. In some other cases, he/she *may* prefer working on uncompressed data and recompress afterward... Yes, I'm really

GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

2007-03-28 Thread Joe Smith
The entire draft can be found at the end of the message. I belive some positive changes have been made, but some changes are for the worse. Here is my analysis of the license. This is more a general analysis, but I am trying to point out any DFSG-freeness problems I find. I have no real

CC 3.0-SA unported

2007-03-05 Thread Joe Smith
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade nicely. This message will have general comments about the licence mixed in with DFSG freeness concerns. Unless I explicitly mention a comment as being a freeness-concern

Re: Java in Debian advice result

2007-03-03 Thread Joe Smith
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back in summer 2006, there was a thread regarding the inclusion of Sun's Java under the DLJ in Debian's non-free area on its FTP site. Questions about the license were raised at that

Re: Bug#412063: ITP: rott -- Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins

2007-03-03 Thread Joe Smith
Fabian Greffrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: Bug#412063: ITP: rott -- Rise of the Triad: The HUNT begins

2007-02-23 Thread Joe Smith
Fabian Greffrath wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. A quick glance showed me nothing that seemed to prevent

Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

2007-02-08 Thread Joe Smith
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence claiming to be

Re: Legal status of tkchooser (microsoft logo used)

2007-01-09 Thread Joe Smith
Jeff Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/21/06 13:53, Joe Smith wrote: That's probably considered fair use for the purpose of which it was intended. I'd guess Microsoft is unlikely to complain. In any case, you should ask the tkchooser authors about

Re: gnuplot, is it free?

2006-12-21 Thread Joe Smith
Carles Pina i Estany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, Gnuplot has a non-common license: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnuplot/gnuplot_4.0.0-5/gnuplot.copyright It says: It is obligatory to add oneself (e.g. Debian) as primary contact if

Re: Legal status of tkchooser (microsoft logo used)

2006-12-21 Thread Joe Smith
Jeff Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12/21/06 11:00, Daniel van Eeden wrote: The file /usr/lib/tkchooser/icons/winpop.pnm from the tkchooser package uses an microsoft windows logo. Is that legally permitted? Please CC or BCC me, I'm not on the list. That's

Re: firefox - iceweasel package is probably not legal

2006-12-07 Thread Joe Smith
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:47, Ben Finney wrote: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:30, Michael Poole wrote: Apparently law instead requires us to assume users are in fact

Re: XBRL XML schema

2006-12-07 Thread Joe Smith
Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Can someone take a look at these docs at [1] and let me know if the XML schemas that are distributed by XBRL International can be redistributed in a Debian compatible way? It doesn't look like the documents can be

Re: firefox - iceweasel package is probably not legal

2006-12-06 Thread Joe Smith
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MJ Ray wrote: Don't trademarks apply even less to included executable file names than to package names? They're not even used to label anything supplied in trade. They are names of controls used to operate the

Re: firefox - iceweasel package is probably not legal

2006-12-06 Thread Joe Smith
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] My trademarks prof, who did trademark work for wine companies, really disliked that line of reasoning, since wine consumers are usually of higher sophistication and could distinguish beer from wine. However, the PTO

Re: photo licenses

2006-11-08 Thread Joe Smith
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maarten de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to allow just about any use of the work, while still retaining copyright, you can distribute your work under the Expat license.

Re: http://pdphoto.org/

2006-11-08 Thread Joe Smith
Maarten de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, I would to know if the use of 'public domain' photos from the website http://pdphoto.org/ to be distributed with an application would be considered DFSG-compatible. Most photo's come with a link to the CC public

  1   2   3   >