On Fri Sep 03 14:04, Paul Wise wrote:
BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris?
http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/
How would the licence interactions work here, with a CDDL kernel and a GPL
libc/userland? Does the fact that it's specifically the kernel satisfy the
aggregation'.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon Mar 22 14:24, David Given wrote:
Absent any modifications, all of Debian (that is, the ‘main’ archive
section) is free to redistribute verbatim in any form. Many other
actions are also permitted; see the specific license texts for details.
I've read that; unfortunately, it just
that there are no
other outstanding licensing details like that.
I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
or version number from the original software.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
go in Debian main.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
*
*/
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a leaf out of
the kernel folks book. Don't worry about patents until someone actually
starts enforcing them (CF fat32) and then reimplement the feature to
work around it.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the preferred form of modification of
that derivative work_, which is your new, translated, TeX file.
HTH,
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
documentation file.
In which case it may be worth mentioning to them that they are likely
failing to meet the terms of the GPL as well.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
material, many of which are GPL, which means you
would have to use the GPL as well.
HTH, IANAL, etc
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is also an issue.
(i.e. shipping a frame-maker file and a PDF is not, AIUI, OK)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
for us
to distribute under that licence. The only thing he'll complain about is
us distributing derivatives. Therefore, not ripping it out of the X.org
package but also not packaging any variants would also seem like a
reasonable conservative stance, if a bit schitzophrenic
Matt
--
Matthew
proper, consider contacting the
debian-multimedia guys.
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
which are
knowingly or potentially libellous or slanderous of individuals,
companies, organisations or political parties.
(Wouldn't this be against the law anyway?)
16. The Proceedings must not be reproduced for overtly political
purposes.
(Really problematic)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
On Sat Jan 03 09:22, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote:
As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange
interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not
sure
dubious) GPL linkage
clause, but I think it would be a stretch.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
would be to convince upstream to licence appropriately for linking
against an Apache licence and an OpenSSL licence.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu Jun 05 18:02, Vincent Danjean wrote:
What I'm thinking with a program that links with 2 libraries:
NOT valid: progA[GPL]{libssl}
if this is not valid then neither is:
valid: progA[GPL+ssl]{libssl,libB[GPL]}
here you are linking libssl and libB[GPL] into the same process so the
On Sat Apr 05 10:00, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
On 08/04/04 21:21 +0100, Matthew Johnson said ...
On Sat Apr 05 00:06, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
So if I am packaging a piece of software for Debian and the software is
licensed
under the GPL, is the above valid (and more
Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
This does imply that it's only being distributed with Debian. If so,
then I don't see a problem with this. The given wording is only an
example of a clear licence grant, it's in no way tied to the licence
itself.
Matt
insert disclaimers here
--
Matthew Johnson
the following a _must_:
Yes, I would say it is. debian/copyright needs to give the licence
status for everything in the package, so any isomorphic declaration is
fine. It's just customary to copy the upstream declaration verbatim and
then add clarification below.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
and
video portions.
There's certainly not one of these either.
I think Gibson are being very optimistic here and neither Activision nor
Debian have anything to worry about.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a modified
version without sending you the modifications, but this is allowed.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
as non-free here (see the desert
island test).
However, as you say, some code _is_ distributed, namely the Java
classes. Thus, the vender must comply with GPL section 6 for at least
those parts which are distributed.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
be included in non-free?
This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in non-free if
you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
hosts? or
a written offer good for three years to provide the source?
Maybe having a deb-src line is good enough since users can run apt-get
source?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
licence, since
not everywhere has PD.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
was of actual people playing actual instruments?
You know, like people always used to. How to you generate that from
'source' at build time? what _is_ the source?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
with
the Game.
and 1. g.:
The Game means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of
Frets on Fire.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
and Teosto's legal team.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, ... to use, modify,
above. May I suggest using a CCby licence and adding 'may only be
distributed with the game' rather than cobbling together your own
inconsistent one...
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
as a musician).
I haven't read the full bug log, but has anyone contacted the
composers directly?
Yes, we have. They are part of the upstream team and their contract forbids
them from releasing _anything_ which is not under a licence Teosto agree with.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
permission from the
copyright holder.
-
Matt
- --
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
to use then.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
even in that.
Matt
- --
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFFweDKpldmHVvob7kRAgb6AKDGYZrBr+wQTUtxnTvGbAPf54Fy/gCfcqXR
a9DY0wE8tNK6pJtzSDY6HdI=
=aTTH
-END PGP SIGNATURE
38 matches
Mail list logo
