Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception

2013-01-30 Thread Josselin Mouette
invalid (§9 and §10 are purely informational), I don’t see it a problem, though. However, regarding compatibility with other GPL components (if there are any), I wouldn’t be so sure. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ

Re: Unsure If Array 30 Chinese Input Method is DFSG Free or Not.

2011-12-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
, at least packages including array input method could be kept in main. This new version looks fine to me. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas

Re: On using the name Kinect, and fetching a binary firmware

2011-09-30 Thread Josselin Mouette
; * the package will need to go in contrib. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1317395902..870

Re: unsourced pdf in tarball; src available from ftp site;

2011-04-30 Thread Josselin Mouette
can then use the upstream pristine tarball. With dpkg-source v3 you can also include binaries in the debian/ directory. Just mention them in debian/source/include-binaries. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone

Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence

2011-04-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
, they should add an option 4: the GPL. End of trouble. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1304064968.32026.72

Re: distributing a restricted branding icon OK?

2011-03-15 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 11:54 -0500, Gabriel Burt a écrit : Is changing http://www.emusic.com/favicon.ico to a PNG modifying it? Assume it's not, would we be OK including that image in our Debian package of Banshee? No, it would not. This icon is not free, in terms of copyright - and that’s

Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?

2011-03-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 11:27 +, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote: In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example of where it does happen, git is largely

Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?

2011-03-08 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic linking to a

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

2011-03-08 Thread Josselin Mouette
Hi, and thanks for the effort of providing the complete information. Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 09:31 +, Andrew Ross a écrit : The software itself is the current version of iText, which is licensed under the AGPL with the following additional term: In accordance with Section 7(b) of the

Re: Parsing output = derivative work? (was: RFS: gnetworktester)

2011-03-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

2011-03-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
when there are traces of nuts in their products. You can’t take the place of such a law by using your copyright license as a vessel. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg

Re: S3TC patent violation in multiple packages?

2010-12-28 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 27 décembre 2010 à 23:22 +, Wols Lists a écrit : But it shouldn't be too hard, in UK courts at least, to file to have it dismissed in summary judgement. I don't know about other European jurisdictions, but we do have case law to back up the European Patent Treaty ban on software

Re: S3TC patent violation in multiple packages?

2010-12-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
. As for the compression algorithms, I can only agree with Julien: we can only care if the patent is being actively enforced and considered valid. Otherwise we might as well stop distributing anything. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed

Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.

2010-11-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 10:36 +0100, Alessandro Rubini a écrit : http://imgur.com/gFKfs.jpg Thank you for making this jpeg, it's very clear. [...] The comapny Logo was created by photoshop and Logo software, we desgined it from the stretch. if you have somethins to say, give us

Re: Problem with Squeeze Artwork

2010-11-12 Thread Josselin Mouette
://www.debian.org/logos/openlogo.svg which, unfortunately, does *not* comply with the DFSG: http://www.debian.org/logos/#open-use Note that this is not a regression from lenny, since moreblue-orbit has the same problem. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
, he could not. The constraints for a CDDL’ed OS are the same as for a proprietary one. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description

Re: [Lame-dev] LAME license

2010-08-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 26 août 2010 à 23:27 +0200, Gabriel Bouvigne a écrit : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/115654 Do you agree with this claim? Without ressorting to any court, I share the opinion that every file featuring the usual LPGLv2 header is only convered by the

Re: Plugins for non-free software in orig.tar.gz

2010-07-04 Thread Josselin Mouette
-algorithmic changes. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: One-line licence statement

2010-04-21 Thread Josselin Mouette
whatever you want with this work. No. You may not, since it only permits use. As I am not sure, which form of language would be the best to achieve this goal? The simplest way to achieve that is probably the WTFPL. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way

Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

2010-03-26 Thread Josselin Mouette
or No for the below license? The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do

Re: CMU LTI Licence

2010-01-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
? Should the acknowledgment go into the package descriptions? In the documentation? On the CD itself? I’d be more confortable with shipping this in Debian if the clause was more clear; or at least, if it was asking to refer to the data only in relevant places. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette

Re: Internet2 licence

2009-09-07 Thread Josselin Mouette
it. I agree with your reasoning and the conclusion this clearly violates DFSG #3. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de

Re: Internet2 licence

2009-09-03 Thread Josselin Mouette
enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form. The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope

Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source

2009-08-26 Thread Josselin Mouette
, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: License of CORBA Interface Definition Files published by the Object Management Group

2009-08-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
the comments are, so maybe we have to strip the comments from those files. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message

Re: Is IPA Font license DFSG-Free?

2009-05-31 Thread Josselin Mouette
to alias a font with another one so it’s fine for those who modify it. Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be fine for Debian. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

2009-05-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
emails, please do so in your signature. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

2009-05-26 Thread Josselin Mouette
such as those of Voxforge? A widely-used technique is to cleverly hide some minor bugs in the data. If a non-free model shows the same bugs, you can prove the data was used illegally. Of course this only works if you manage to keep the bugs secret. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette

Re: Dirent.cpp - Is it DFSG-free GPLv2 only compatible

2009-04-24 Thread Josselin Mouette
be made” → clearly non-free -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: GPL2 vs. GPL3

2009-04-14 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 14 avril 2009 à 18:53 +0200, dominik.smat...@gmail.com a écrit : Dear legal gurus, is it possible to publish software under GPL3, if this software is depending on some GPL2 libraries? Sorry, I was trying to read GPL3, but my English is not good enough to figure this out by

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

2009-04-10 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 10 avril 2009 à 14:35 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : At least with a strict interpretation, the run-time exception suffers from a significant issue with compilers which are not licensed under a GPLv3-compatible license (such as the GPLv2, or the QPL), and which are implemented in

Re: Zimbra and Yahoo Public License

2009-03-24 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 23 mars 2009 à 17:16 +0100, Cedric Fachinetti a écrit : * 3.2 - In any copy of the Software or in any Modification you create, You must retain and reproduce, any and all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

2009-03-19 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 17 mars 2009 à 14:54 +, MJ Ray a écrit : In general, I'd support this. Further, j...@debian's implementation included at X.org is not subject to the other holder's copyright, so I'd report the bogus CC-NC-ND layout claim as a bug to X.org. Has that happened? This thread hinted

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

2009-03-19 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 17 mars 2009 à 23:13 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : Unless there are copyrightable comments, which can be stripped out, I don't think there's anything here that we should recognize as covered by copyright at all. Keep the keyboard mapping we currently have in X if it's useful

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

2009-03-17 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 16 mars 2009 à 11:18 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? I don’t think so, but maybe an open source evangelist would have better luck. Alternatively, can someone generate a

The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

2009-03-16 Thread Josselin Mouette
Hi, there are two available layouts for French Dvorak keyboards. One of them, which is the cause of my concern, was written by Francis Leboutte, and was originally distributed as a (non-free) Windows driver. I started then to make another implementation of the same mapping, for X11. It soon

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free No. Even the FSF considers it free. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : Even the FSF considers it free. The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms as

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

2009-01-11 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit : The only case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of other cases, I would be interested to learn about them. There’s also the case of MP3

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

2009-01-08 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 23:19 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors to call Debian modified versions Alice, as long as renaming it is easy otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past. I don't think the

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

2009-01-07 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 09:25 -0500, Luke Faraone a écrit : Hi, I'm interested in packaging Alice (RFP: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500648), but it's license http://www.alice.org/index.php?page=license has naming restrictions similar to Mozilla. Would retitling

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

2009-01-02 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here. The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture. No. If you’re the copyright owner, you get to decide what is the preferred form of

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

2008-12-31 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian. Say

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

2008-12-31 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here. I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the GPL point of view. The relevance comes from the fact that pictures can be their own

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

2008-12-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 13:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : * To upload a background source package, is it mandatory to use an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a E.g. this is bullshit. More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in

Re: deluge and GeoIP database license

2008-11-21 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 00:33 +0100, Cristian Greco a écrit : 1) Is this license really suitable for distribution in main now? Yes, it’s a BSD license with advertising clause. Theoretically you cannot link GPL software without exception to it; however the library is merely using it as

Re: Public Domain for Germans

2008-11-15 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 14:25 +, MJ Ray a écrit : Also, I'm disappointed that WTFPLv2 is so long. Why do people need to care about Sam Hocevar's name, address and permission to change it? It seems obviously below the creative threshold for copyright... I'm no longer sure whether

Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3

2008-11-04 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 18:28 +0100, Simon Josefsson a écrit : 2. VERBATIM COPYING You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. I wonder how we should consider the fact they did not remove nor rephrase this

Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license

2008-11-02 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:59 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : First of all, a no-name-including-this-string clause may well be more restrictive than default trademark law. A case where this is particularly apparent is the PHP one: I am not allowed to use any name including the string PHP

Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license

2008-10-30 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature of the change and the names of those who changed them. An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable. The second part of

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

2008-08-31 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes a écrit : I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK, to have source code in

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

2008-08-28 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 28 août 2008 à 01:22 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : Because it's just not implied, unless you manage to stretch the concepts enough. Maybe we need to rephrase DFSG5 as “The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons, except those Marco d’Itri doesn’t care

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

2008-08-28 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 21 août 2008 à 11:16 +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program (possibly modified) covered by AGPLv3 that uses some kind of network, and you cannot convey its source code to the remote people you're interacting with through that

Re: Bootstrapping from binary blob shipped in the source package

2008-07-31 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 31 juillet 2008 à 10:07 +0200, Jens Peter Secher a écrit : What do you mean by reliability here? From a package-building perspective, I find it to be more reliable to use the precompiled blop because then I can make sure that the package compiles in a minimal environment. Otherwise

Re: Zend Optimizer License

2008-07-10 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 10 juillet 2008 à 15:06 -0500, Richard Laager a écrit : 7. Indemnity. Licensee will, at its own expense, defend any action brought by a third party against Zend to the extent that such action is based on a claim arising from or relating to: (a) Licensee's use of the Software, (ii) any

Re: codecs and totem

2008-06-30 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 29 juin 2008 à 01:53 -0400, Daniel Dickinson a écrit : totem-xine vlc (I think mplayer) can play DVD's as they are in main totem-gstreamer can also, but without full menu support. Of course, you need libdvdcss to be able to read 99% of the DVDs. -- .''`. : :' : We are

Re: BSD/GPL/LGPL and OpenSSL

2008-06-05 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 05 juin 2008 à 18:02 +0200, Vincent Danjean a écrit : * LGPL+ssl (LGPL with OpenSSL clause) There is no need for an OpenSSL exception for a LGPL-licensed work. What I'm thinking with a program that links with 2 libraries: NOT valid: progA[GPL]{libssl} valid:

Re: DFSG is not suitable for things other than software

2008-05-21 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 16:12 -0700, Yuhong Bao a écrit : DFSG is not suitable for, and should not be applied to, things other than software. I see dead horses. People beat them. They don’t know they are dead. They only see what they want to see. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org.

Re: RFR: Inc. logo in game data

2008-05-03 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 03 mai 2008 à 17:43 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang a écrit : He thinks that those games should to be put in non-free, unless we can remove those logos. [2] It is OK for me to pack a non-free package, but it is hard to find a sponsor for non-free packages. The license doesn’t seem to

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

2008-03-28 Thread Josselin Mouette
On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 18:58 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on scripts using the language. Huh? Why can't someone patent langauge grammar/syntax? I should

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

2008-03-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
On ven, 2008-03-21 at 10:09 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: This clause makes the license a copyleft one. It is free, but this is a huge restriction compared to the original license. And this turns the license into yet another copyleft license that will be incompatible with other ones.

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

2008-03-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
On sam, 2008-03-22 at 22:33 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: Have you considered the GNU LGPL (v2.1)? Yes, but I encountered strong resistance from FSF when proposing a lighter (with exceptions) LGPL version. This is, again, because you are not proposing additional permissions (for which

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

2008-03-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
On mer, 2008-03-19 at 20:34 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications and permissions. This is, well, an interesting claim. 4. *Redistribution of Work and Derivative Works*. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the

Re: Desert island test (was: Questions about liblouis)

2008-02-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit : And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared aspiration of what the document ought to say. I have never seen an attempt to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to debate

Re: License clause, not allowing use of author's name for promoting

2008-01-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008 à 23:25 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo a écrit : Hi, I am concerned about the following license snippet, basically point 3 which talk about use of authors' name. This comes from a source included in conduit (version 0.3.6, not yet uploaded) 3. The name of the

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

2008-01-18 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 16 janvier 2008 à 14:55 +, MJ Ray a écrit : We have allowed exactly the same conditions by using software with trademarked names. Where? The naming rights asserted above seem much broader than what a trademark allows. Trademarks have many limitations. If we have named

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

2008-01-16 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 14 janvier 2008 à 22:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : a. The name of Your Product (or of Your modified version of This Product) must not contain the name TrueCrypt (for example, the following names are not allowed: TrueCrypt, TrueCrypt+, TrueCrypt Professional,

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

2008-01-13 Thread Josselin Mouette
On sam, 2008-01-12 at 20:27 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: The plain text version of the licence may be found at http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/License.txt and is pasted below in its entirety. Thanks. Summary: * I think this software is fine for main if we package it the iceweasel

Re: Micropolis GPL License Notice

2008-01-13 Thread Josselin Mouette
On dim, 2008-01-13 at 14:37 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: | ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7 | | No trademark or publicity rights are granted. This license does NOT give you | any right, title or interest in the trademark SimCity or any other Electronic | Arts trademark. You may

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 30 décembre 2007 à 08:55 +, Sean B. Palmer a écrit : I'm looking for a permissive license, of the Modified BSD or MIT variety, but I'd like for the copyright notices in each file to be protected without having to include the whole license itself, if it's more than a few lines.

Re: Bug#451799: new evince cannot display Japanese characters correctly

2007-11-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
clone 451799 -1 retitle 451799 evince should depend on poppler-data reassign -1 wnpp retitle -1 RFP: poppler-data -- Encoding data for the poppler PDF rendering library block 451799 by -1 thanks * Package name: poppler-data Version : 0.1.1 Upstream Author : Adobe, Red Hat * URL

Re: GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

2007-11-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit : Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? I don't think so. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software

Re: The legality of wodim

2007-11-17 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007 à 08:30 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit : For all I know he does have a legitimate claim under German law that cdrkit infringes his Urheberrecht, but cdrkit is not a German product per se. The German law doesn't give Jörg Schilling more rights than any other one, and

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

2007-11-16 Thread Josselin Mouette
of the GPL, the author's rights apply by default, so you don't have the right to use, distribute or modify the software. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

2007-11-15 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 15 novembre 2007 à 17:04 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : CarMetal uses colorchooser https://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is CDDL licensed. If colorchooser has been developed independently from CaRMetal, and only CaRMetal calls colorchooser, it is indeed similar to what happens

Re: rescuing code from the GPL

2007-11-11 Thread Josselin Mouette
, whether in source form or compiled form. No, it must be licensed under a GPL-*compatible* license. And the BSD license is GPL-compatible. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-10 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it explicitly allows it. Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case.

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-10 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers. Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL library and

Re: The legality of wodim

2007-11-10 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : So make sure that wodim prints something like: This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original software and it mets the rules. Sorry, but we are not allowed to display false statements like this

Re: transitive GPL (exim4, OpenSSL, mySQL and others)

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Hi, Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 19:27 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : (1) Is it ok to change exim's SSL library to OpenSSL in the current setup without violating the GPL for some of the library currently in use As you said, libmysqlclient and exim are OK with linking with OpenSSL. The one

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license. Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations. Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems. And above all, don't

RE: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:07 -0800, Yuhong Bao a écrit : That is exactly why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in current versions of cdrtools. Now the remaining problem is about the GPLed library that the CDDL mkisofs links to. Removing HFS support would solve this problem.

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work. Yes,

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work: - You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL. You are basing all of your reasoning on the assumption that a program that uses a

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:46 -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit : If you want my services as an English teacher, you'll have to ask me for a quote; otherwise, finding the errors in your logic is your problem, not mine. Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 17:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Is this

Re: The legality of cdrecord

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : there is a problem in wodim. The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that harm the reputation of the Author. There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation of

Re: GPL 3 and derivatives

2007-11-09 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 06:15 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit : Francesco Poli wrote: ... and despite its length, it does not even implement an actually working copyleft mechanism. :-( Francesco, that's very surprising. Can you please elaborate, or have you posted your opinion on

Re: is the lucent public license DFSG-free?

2007-10-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 01:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : The whole license is CPL-based. Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. I have

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-10-01 Thread Josselin Mouette
. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-09-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting. However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was accepted by Debian.

Re: is the lucent public license DFSG-free?

2007-09-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : The whole license is CPL-based. Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to

Re: is the lucent public license DFSG-free?

2007-09-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 12:06 -0400, Joe Smith a écrit : I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no jury for the trial? All this means is that should a trial arise, neither side will request a jury to decide the questions of Fact. If no jury is requested,

Re: is the lucent public license DFSG-free?

2007-09-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
Short summary, two potential freeness issues: * the contributor indemnification clause, * the patent retaliation clause. Le vendredi 21 septembre 2007 à 00:03 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : 2. GRANT OF RIGHTS This section is OK. 3. REQUIREMENTS B. Each Distributor must include

Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b

2007-09-07 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:49 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: [...] I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but to add further

Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b

2007-09-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
notices. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement

2007-09-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
, or could go to main? Section 3 is clearly non-free, so the library itself would have to go to non-free. A GPL program can use it, but you need a specific exception allowing linking with this software from all copyright owners of GPL components. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette

Re: Monkey's Audio License Agreement

2007-09-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
packages, the non-free and the contrib part? Personally I would upload it entirely to non-free, but such a choice is the maintainer's to make. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux

Re: Using a CC-3.0-BY file as data file for a GPL program

2007-09-05 Thread Josselin Mouette
in this format, I don't think that changes much. It would be pretty much like a program requiring a GPL library to work properly, but that would dlopen() it at startup. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses

2007-09-03 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes. Only you and Anthony Towns believe the changes were not editorial. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette

  1   2   3   >