Re: Packaging text licenses

2019-12-16 Thread MJ Ray
2019-12-15 1:26:28 PM Jonas Smedegaard : [...] > As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits > classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software". > > As I understand it, you personally classify license fulltexts as > "non-free software" and then add a

Re: Tux licensing again

2019-07-31 Thread MJ Ray
Eriberto Mota wrote: > I am packaging a software that distribute a Tux image [...] > The original license can be viewed here[1]. [...] > [1] https://isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/ That page also includes "Feel free to do whatever you see fit with the images, you are encouraged to integrate them

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

2016-03-11 Thread MJ Ray
ss I'm going blind again, you forgot to tell us what [1] and [2] are. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html

Re: CISST licence and DFSG

2015-11-10 Thread MJ Ray
Riley Baird wrote [apparently not citing authors]: >> DFSG-free software usually refrain from restricting use or download. > > Is this a requirement? The Microsoft Public License states: > > If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not > accept the license, do not use the

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread MJ Ray
ion of DFSG §5, right? Yes, it probably would - how would the listed people ever gain a new valid licence? Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/ In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html

Re: Question about a custom license from dictconfig

2014-08-27 Thread MJ Ray
persons fails DFSG 5 for sure, doesn't it? It might also fail 1 or 3 because it seems like the reverse of licences that REQUIRE authors to disclose their names, which I think have been widely regarded as failing to meet DFSG and even gave rise to the Dissident Test. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray

Re: Question about a custom license from dictconfig

2014-08-26 Thread MJ Ray
DAMAGES OR # ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER # IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT # OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. CC'd as requested. -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop

Re: Standardization documents in xsd and wsdl format

2014-08-04 Thread MJ Ray
On 11 July 2014 16:20:45 CEST, Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se wrote: Standardization bodies tend to want to not have random people making random changes to their standardization documents that would create incompatible versions of the standards. The documentation licenses used by

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-04 Thread MJ Ray
On 4 August 2014 13:26:11 GMT+01:00, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: (-project dropped from the CC) MJ Ray writes (Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license): Secondly, unless it says otherwise, a naming restriction in a copyright licence doesn't permit honest source

Re: Zend Engine License

2014-08-02 Thread MJ Ray
On 2 August 2014 04:51:30 CEST, Riley Baird bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote: Another thought: Doesn't the Zend Engine License also have the same problem as the PHP License in that we are not allowed to use the words Zend or Zend Engine for modified versions of the Zend

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-02 Thread MJ Ray
On 31 July 2014 01:03:00 CEST, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: Back to the question of rebranding, the PHP developers have already explained that because PHP is a three-letter word, they are not in a position to protect their name with a trademark. Therefore, they do it with a license.

Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-08-01 Thread MJ Ray
On 1 August 2014 17:59:11 CEST, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Similar situations often arise in relation to trademarks. Our usual approach in such cases has been to rely on the informal assurances, and not seek any kind of formal trademark licence amendment. I thought we

Re: [PECL-DEV] Re: Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license

2014-07-30 Thread MJ Ray
On 30 July 2014 22:00:17 CEST, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote: If Debian OTOH decides to make their own fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of PHP. I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute under the name of PHP is anything but the

Re: CC-BY-SA-4.0

2014-04-25 Thread MJ Ray
that helps, - -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop

Re: ODC-By license -- DFSG-compliant?

2013-09-20 Thread MJ Ray
would be most appropriate. No and (as ever) it depends on the aim but I'd prefer one of MIT/BSD/GPL. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http

Re: ODC-By license -- DFSG-compliant?

2013-09-19 Thread MJ Ray
under Section 9.1, this License is granted to You for the duration of applicable rights in the Database. This helps to meet DFSG 1, as does 9.5 about relicensing. I would welcome other analyses. -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

2013-09-19 Thread MJ Ray
someone will fork it and maintain it better. I think that's happened to other Oracle projects when they went a bit nutty. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only

Re: [OT] Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

2013-09-03 Thread MJ Ray
On 02/09/13 21:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote: MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop writes: whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png You know that l.d.o is not the only

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?

2013-09-03 Thread MJ Ray
-dak as suggested in that message, I've done a bit of -l10n-english-style language tidyup work, but debian-dak doesn't seem to do anything relevant to licensing as far as I've seen so far. Confused, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?

2013-09-03 Thread MJ Ray
.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop

Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?

2013-09-03 Thread MJ Ray
it a month or so after that sort of change. I will submit the list topic change as a wishlist bug Real Soon Now unless I'm told not to. Regards, - -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

2013-09-02 Thread MJ Ray
replies with relevant references. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- 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/5224697f.5060

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

2013-09-02 Thread MJ Ray
more) has contributed well, so listen to pabs if that's your criteria. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

2013-09-01 Thread MJ Ray
that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ supporter, web and LMS developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

2013-07-19 Thread MJ Ray
might be one way to do that. Hope that informs, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development

Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users

2013-07-11 Thread MJ Ray
situation for users. So I ask licensors to explicitly grant permission to distribute only the patches and a link to the upstream. This might not have been the intent, but this wouldn't be the first quirk in AGPLv3. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op

Re: Advice regarding chess engine database files license

2013-06-05 Thread MJ Ray
Varun Hiremath va...@debian.org The chess tablebase files are generated by the Gaviota Engine whose license is clearly not DFSG compatible. However, the author is releasing the generated database files under the MIT license. Is the MIT license for these database files DFSG compatible? [...]

Re: Advice regarding chess engine database files license

2013-06-05 Thread MJ Ray
Paul Wise p...@debian.org On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM, MJ Ray wrote: The Gaviota Engine licence shouldn't apply to the database files. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput for a similar topic. Sounds like they should go to contrib though, due to the non-free build-dep

Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception [sequitur-g2p]

2013-02-04 Thread MJ Ray
Giulio Is there any way to be 100% sure? I am still waiting for a reply from upstream on this. As far as I know, the only way to be 100% sure is for it to be subject to a precedent-setting court ruling or legislation, but even that will only provide certainty for one jurisdiction - and it's

Re: Public Domain again

2013-02-01 Thread MJ Ray
. the copyright-lacking sense used already in this thread; 2. publicly available. I've not seen case law, but I fear that it would be reasonably possible for someone to convince a court that a holder meant to make a work available but not permit everything. Anyone seen it tried? Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef

Re: Public Domain again

2013-01-31 Thread MJ Ray
Jérémy. Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends on the country you're in. What if that country applies laws that violate DFSG ? Please enlighten me. Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging? Short answer: any software in that country is not free software, but

Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception [sequitur-g2p]

2013-01-30 Thread MJ Ray
would accept it, but I'm not 100% sure. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including

Re: Which license should mercurial_keyring choose?

2012-12-07 Thread MJ Ray
Christoph Mathys erase...@gmail.com Upstream has kind of dual licensed the package under GPL and BSD license (PKG-INFO says BSD, the implementation file mercurial_keyring.py says GPL). I contacted upstream and he is willing to change the license to whatever is required, but preferable to

Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more

2012-09-24 Thread MJ Ray
in. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop

Re: A trademark add-on to the AGPL license

2012-06-19 Thread MJ Ray
Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr I would like to package z-push in Debian. It seems to me that it's ok to ship it in Debian, but I'm not sure if it's ok to keep the upstream name z-push, due to some addition to the AGPL license. [...] If you want to propagate modified versions of the Program

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

2012-06-12 Thread MJ Ray
Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition insufficient for Debian Project. Am I right? I don't think so. The DFSG dates from 1997. The Free Software Definition

Re: Figlet relicensed from AFL to BSD-3

2012-05-14 Thread MJ Ray
Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com To me, this means that the main figlet package is now DFSG-compliant. Would someone else be able to confirm for me that this package is ok to move back from non-free to main? If all the files are now under that licence, I think it is OK. (crc.c, crc.h,

Re: Do you consider charity shops non commercial?

2012-04-15 Thread MJ Ray
Paul Wise p...@debian.org This is the relevant section of the CC NC licenses: You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the

Re: Name restriction and forced acknowledgement OK?

2012-02-13 Thread MJ Ray
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) Mark Weyer m...@weyer-zuhause.de writes: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: c. The name(s) of all routine(s) in your derived work shall not include the prefix iau. Non-free: It effectively forbids using a

Re: License impact of opencore-amr and vo-aacenc/amrwbenc

2012-02-08 Thread MJ Ray
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com [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!] I'm confused by the above, so I'm keeping all the CCs.

Re: MIT +no-false-attribs

2012-01-24 Thread MJ Ray
Jérémy Lal je...@edagames.com following npm license is Expat + one restriction, is it still DFSG ? If it just this one addition: Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software, containing modifications that

Re: Mozilla Public License 2.0 released

2012-01-05 Thread MJ Ray
Paul Wise p...@debian.org On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:53 AM, MJ Ray wrote: Is the headline that, in a fit of Not Invented Hear and licence proliferation, Mozilla is planning to phase out the GPL/LGPL tri-licensing? Please redirect your complaints somewhere they may have an affect

Re: Nuitka - GPLv3 plus contribution copyright assignment

2012-01-05 Thread MJ Ray
this, but I will note that your intent looks a little unfair, demanding that others grant you more permissions than you grant them. Of course, that is your right while you are maintaining the project, but it may limit contributions. -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than

Re: Mozilla Public License 2.0 released

2012-01-04 Thread MJ Ray
under MPL 2.0 can be combined with a Hello World to convert to a GNU *GPL. Disappointed, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html

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

2011-12-19 Thread MJ Ray
be worthwhile. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop

Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

2011-12-15 Thread MJ Ray
Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:57:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I don't know of anywhere that Powered by SugarCRM is a legal notice. Does anyone? What legal effect does it have? I worked on the drafting of GPLv3 at my previous job (no tomatoes, please :). You

Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

2011-12-14 Thread MJ Ray
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com Is there a debian-legal position on Appropriate Legal Notices aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b); OR, alternatively, the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License (CPAL). I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates with

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-26 Thread MJ Ray
Ken Arromdee wrote: [GPLv2, section 3] That section only applies if you got a written offer. People who use Bittorrent to download (and therefore to upload) Debian don't have a written offer, so they can't take advantage of that clause. (Debian itself is, as you point out, distributing

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

2011-04-24 Thread MJ Ray
Stefan Hirschmann wrote: Short English summary: - A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a Abmahnung [2] to a person which downloaded Debian using Bittorrent. The company Media Art Holland b.v claimed that she has the Nutzungs und Verwertungsrechte (something like

Re: Chicken Dance License

2011-03-26 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Harris wrote: I am the author of a new Free Software license called the Chicken Dance License. It is a BSD-based license that offers extra hilarity over most, if not all, other Free Software licenses. This new legal infrastructure that I seek to create will result in less hair-pulling

Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

2011-03-16 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli wrote: [...] It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for quite a long time. Are you sure it's the most accepted? I

Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

2011-03-16 Thread MJ Ray
Paul Wise wrote: This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ: Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do not

Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

2011-03-14 Thread MJ Ray
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked: I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2]. Can these be shipped in the source and binary package? [1]

Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

2011-03-14 Thread MJ Ray
Paul Wise wrote: [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the source files are TeX documents. Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it means by source code? I think one is deep into language

Re: License question

2011-03-12 Thread MJ Ray
Bernhard Reiter asked: The following license applies to one cardset included with pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

2011-03-07 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Ross wrote: The full license can be found at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/agpl.php [...] I don't want to mis-represent what Bruno has said, so hopefully he'll chime in and expand further if I get anything wrong here. I think the following paragraph from Bruno sums up his viewpoint:

Re: The Evil Cookie Producer case

2011-03-06 Thread MJ Ray
Bruno Lowagie wrote: Please don't avoid the question: does the freedom to hide information prevail over the freedom to get information? You mean like you avoided the question: what is the actual case here? This list works better when it is discussing actual software which be considered for

Re: Bug#614390: cmake provides files under proprietary license

2011-02-23 Thread MJ Ray
Modestas Vainius wrote: this bug is serious (i.e. the file is not shippable), isn't it? Problematic copyright notice is below. The copyright notice is false (the confidentiality has been broken) but I see no permission to distribute, so your claim seems correct. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef

Re: default CC license version number is always latest?

2011-01-18 Thread MJ Ray
Ricardo Mones asked: I've found a theme which states it's licensed 'Creative Commons by-nc-sa'. My question is whether is possible assume the version of the license or not (note that my first reaction to this is this is not a valid license, but I'm not sure if my feelings are right).

Re: Unclear source data situation

2011-01-11 Thread MJ Ray
Noel David Torres Taño wrote: No comments on this? I didn't understand what anyone was meant to do with it. Make it easy to understand what you want If you want something, come right out and say it. People read so many emails that they often don't guess at what a cryptic message means, but

Re: debian.* domains

2011-01-09 Thread MJ Ray
Joerg Jaspert wrote: Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.* domain and donate it to the project, please contact hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it. Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of Domain handling for Debian. Cool. Does

Re: debian.* domains

2011-01-01 Thread MJ Ray
inkvizitor68sl asked: Is it possible to use debian.* domains for websites with documentation about Debian (and sometimes - for Ubuntu and some other distros, as much of manuals can be used at any distro) ? I mean here some blogs. Personal, for this moment, but there will be new authors in

Re: Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?

2010-12-16 Thread MJ Ray
quim@nokia.com wrote: Julian wrote: * Package names contain meego everywhere. According to common believe, they are not subject to trademark restrictions (that's why we had a firefox compatibility package for firefox-iceweasel transition). They are merely an

Re: Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?

2010-12-10 Thread MJ Ray
Ibrahim Haddad wrote: We would ask you to move away from using {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o or any subset of those letters or sounds in that order, alone or in combination with other letters, words or marks that would tend to cause someone to make a reasonable connection of the reference with the MeeGo

Re: is RtMidi license DFSG-free?

2010-10-17 Thread MJ Ray
Miriam Ruiz wrote: Especially this part: Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version., can it be considered DFSG-free? It looks like a request not a

Re: license confusion GPL + openssl license - ipsec-tools/racoon

2010-08-26 Thread MJ Ray
Stefan Bauer wrote: Basically that is true, setkey as part of ipsec-tools is using parts of openssl-headers. Howto deal with that? From what i've read is, that if the upstream authors are aggree on adding an openssl exeption to there license, that would be a solution around this problem. I

Re: Catalyst Career Group use of Debian logo

2010-08-23 Thread MJ Ray
philip tricca wrote: I've run across a company using the Debian logo slightly modified in a way that appears to violate the logo license (at least in my reading of it): its use is not in reference to the Debian project. The company site can be found here:

Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]

2010-08-18 Thread MJ Ray
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote: If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the

Re: Debian Open Use Logo License (was Re: RC bug filled against desktop-base related to the open logo.)

2010-08-16 Thread MJ Ray
Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 00:54:22 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: Let's tackle this from a different angle. What were the ongoing concerns and aren't they solved yet? Who do I need to talk to in order to change the license? The DPL. AFAIK when the logo license was

Re: RC bug filled against desktop-base related to the open logo.

2010-08-16 Thread MJ Ray
Gustavo Franco wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Gustavo Franco wrote: * Btw, if it was the open logo, we're not talking about software. DFSG quote about Derived Works states original software; I feel that's unacceptable - the logo is software

Re: RC bug filled against desktop-base related to the open logo.

2010-08-15 Thread MJ Ray
Gustavo Franco wrote: Please bear with me if it was discussed here before, I wasn't CC'ed. Do you want to be? I've guessed yes, but please state explicitly. Pre-filing discussion is around http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/06/msg00014.html Pompee William filled #587668 (The Debian

Re: Open Database License (ODbL)

2010-08-15 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] ## ODC Open Database License (ODbL) Better late than never, what follows is my own personal analysis of the license. I thank Francesco Poli for this analysis and regret that I do not have time just now

Re: Sample/reference code of RFCs

2010-07-20 Thread MJ Ray
markus schnalke asked: It's about the package `masqmail'. The upstream release includes an MD5 implementation (in src/md5). This MD5 code is the reference implementation code from RFC 1321 and RFC 2104. See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293932#50 which basically recommends

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl

2010-07-05 Thread MJ Ray
Yavor Doganov wrote: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:23:16 +0100, MJ Ray If the GPL program links with another library, why does it need ifdefs or configure options? Surely that's left to the library? Well, the program can check for the presence of libcurl-gnutls and libcurl, and conditionally link

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl

2010-07-03 Thread MJ Ray
Yavor Doganov wrote: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:09:19 +0100, MJ Ray Yavor Doganov wrote: I see no difference between this scenario and a classic C program that supports both OpenSSL and GnuTLS via #ifdef's and `configure' options. In the C-ifdef scenario, the GPL program is derived from both

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl

2010-07-01 Thread MJ Ray
Yavor Doganov wrote: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:35:45 +0100, MJ Ray I think the suggestion is that software using python-pycurl would not change if they were using openssl or gnutls. I don't understand how the GPL'd software is derived from openssl if it works interchangably with gnutls

Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?

2010-06-30 Thread MJ Ray
Charles Plessy wrote: it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully been used in court by the plaintiff. Here

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl

2010-06-30 Thread MJ Ray
Yavor Doganov wrote: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:57:24 +0100, Guido Trotter Now, what would be the status of (unmodified) GPL python software which imports pycurl? According to the FSF licensing team, such software must be under GPL+OpenSSL exception.

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl

2010-06-29 Thread MJ Ray
Guido Trotter wrote: According to my understandment: - OpenSSL is released under a license which is GPL incompatible, unless an exception to the GPL is used in the software compiled with it. Debian cannot distribute GPL software released under the unmodified GPL and linked against

Re: Debian Open Use Logo License (DOULL): warranty provided?

2010-06-28 Thread MJ Ray
Pompee William william.pom...@gmail.com wrote: According to the DOULL there's no warranty provided for the use of the software referring to the logo WITHOUT Debian but there's nothing said for the logo WITH Debian. Does it assume I may complain to the Debian Project for the use of a

Re: Copyright on small shell script

2010-02-24 Thread MJ Ray
markus schnalke asked: [1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2000-09/0392.html [...] I surely do want to give credit. My point is about including 18162 bytes of license for 262 bytes of straight forward code. What do you think? I think the email from Marco is trivial because he

Re: Bug#565884: Please include CeCILL* licenses in common-licenses

2010-01-20 Thread MJ Ray
Thibaut Paumard suggested: there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under [1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...] [1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence? CeCILL Article 5.3.4 states The Licensee can include a code that

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-05 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote: mdpo...@troilus.org wrote: The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some I feel it's some combination of DFSG 5 (discriminating on location) and DFSG 1 (non-monetary cost

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-05 Thread MJ Ray
Nicolas Alvarez nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote: MJ Ray wrote: I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable, thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance. This choice-of-venue discussion looks

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-04 Thread MJ Ray
Sean Kellogg wrote: Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...] The problem with this line of argument is that it

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-17 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Dalke wrote: On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote: Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.) Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also included the book title and author name, I

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-16 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Dalke wrote: On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was blind. [...] Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy

Re: Are debian/ubuntu distributions commercial applications from a legal point of view?

2009-11-17 Thread MJ Ray
Laszlo Lebrun wrote: Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question? I'm pretty sure that commercial applications in legal use means something different to commercial software applications, so I'd say that the act of distribution itself is sometimes a commercial application. I'm not

Re: New Adobe CMaps license free enough for Debian?

2009-10-20 Thread MJ Ray
Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header, deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I considered those irrelevant for the question at hand. I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

2009-09-29 Thread MJ Ray
cate wrote: Eugen Dedu wrote: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the any use doesn't include distribution of software. For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributable,

Re: Art content licensing question

2009-09-21 Thread MJ Ray
Bart Kelsey wrote: I may have overstepped a bit in terms of aggregate. What I'd *like* for this license to cover is basically a *project* -- a piece of software, as a whole, which makes use of the media in question. There isn't really a need to contaminate *other* software with this license.

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

2009-08-25 Thread MJ Ray
Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org wrote: GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation. It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with patches and issues. [...] Currently I see only three options: 1) upstream decides to open his build system 2) we move it to

Re: BSD-LBNL license

2009-08-21 Thread MJ Ray
David Bremner brem...@unb.ca The text of BSD-LBNL-License.doc (blech, I know) is as follows [...] The weird parts (as far as I can tell) are [...] - the comment about commercial use. This does not seem to be reflected in the terms of the license. [...] Any comments? I'm not

Re: Mono License changes over time and the risks this is presenting.

2009-07-06 Thread MJ Ray
Peter Dolding oia...@gmail.com wrote: [...] In fact the head of Microsoft has said That only Novell and other people who have signed agreements is protected. So all the class libraries of mono need to move to the restricted section. Hopefully this will push the .Net wanting people to get

Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.

2009-07-03 Thread MJ Ray
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in binary distributions. [...] I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With the

Re: MusicXML 2.0?

2009-06-29 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:45:00 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: A. DEFINITIONS [...] Original Program means the original version of the software accompanying this Agreement as released by Recordare LLC, including source code, object code and

Re: InaTux's Author's Choice of Terminology License

2009-06-08 Thread MJ Ray
oohay moc. loopy_b...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes. I don't know much about copyright. But, I would guess that with a properly written license, that you would append it to a legal copyright registration along with the work that the license is covering, and send it to the patent office of copyrights.

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

2009-06-04 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: In the US and some other places, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted. You can make a free bitmap font by rendering a non-free font at a particular size. Interesting: could you point me at

Re: mono and moonlight distribution method make me worried.

2009-06-04 Thread MJ Ray
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote: [...] if it is indeed required that the patent indemnity be requested then from a patent license perspective, the Mono implementation should fail Debian Legal's Desert Island and Dissident tests for DFSG compliance[5] because upstream must

Re: debian trademark

2009-05-04 Thread MJ Ray
behrad eslami behrad...@yahoo.com wrote: if i register debian domain linke debian.ir or debian-ir.com for run the debian forume or user group, did it confilict with debian trademark? did i need any permission to use debian name for run website about debian. If it's a site for users of debian

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >