* On 8/27/24 12:21, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote:
The "original source" of the logo is an SVG file.
From that SVG we "generate" some png or ico files used as icons to
display in a file manager or the application GUI.
Might it be a way that the author of the original source (SVG) logo give
the proje
* On 9/27/23 21:10, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Mihai" == Mihai Moldovan writes:
>
> Mihai> In this case, we're "just" talking about missing notices for
> Mihai> dependencies that are pulled in, which might not be nice, but
>
* On 9/27/23 16:41, John Thorvald Wodder II wrote:
> On 2023 Sep 26, at 20:36, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Your analysis is correct, some extra context for this problem:
>>
>> The problem you have identified applies to other statically linked
>> languages too, so I have updated the wiki page to link to it
Hello Adam
Thank you for pointing out such issues and providing context.
* On 12/1/22 13:38, Adam Ant wrote:
> Large portions of the core code base are labeled as LGPL-2 - There is no such
> licence. It is either GPL-2 or LGPL-2.1
Technically, there is a LGPL 2.0 license, although deprecated, s
* On 8/5/22 01:09, Ben Westover wrote:
> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
I can see how the outcome of, e.g., lega
* On 8/4/22 05:00, Ben Westover wrote:
> I was wondering if the Apple Public Source License (version 2.0)
> complies with the DFSG. The Free Software Foundation considers it to be
> a free software license (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html),
> but I just wanted to make sure it's compatib
* On 1/5/22 9:32 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> [...]
> Navtej Bhatti wrote on https://milkydeveloper.github.io/cb-linux/:
>
>> Depthcharge does not have the ability of using an initramfs
>
> This is an unsupported configuration for booting Debian, and I bet for
> every other Linux distro, since they rel
* On 7/12/21 10:58 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> None of the issues you are bringing up are license issues, nor do they
> affect what changes Debian (or our users) can make to the software.
>
> The Debian maintainers of the packages in question can decide which of
> the upstream changes they wish to re
* On 6/15/20 10:51 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> As you will have noticed, I am not an expert on licenses and have picked CC
> BY-SA 4.0 because I believe Maxmind’s database was licensed under this before.
I'm assuming that your DB will not contain any content from Maxmind's DB? Hence,
you just str
* On 5/24/20 6:33 PM, Eriberto Mota wrote:
> Today I found the file test/ftp.y, in btyacc package, using the
> following license:
>
> test/ftp.y: * Copyright (c) 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of
> California.
> test/ftp.y- * All rights reserved.
> test/ftp.y- *
> test/ftp.y- * Redistributi
* On 4/20/20 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
>>> Distributing to friends may cross the line of personal use. And !"personal
>>> use" != "commercial use".
>>> (I define "personal use" as individual use; not use of a group.)
>>>
>>> Also, there may be an Dissident Inc; also that needs the Dissident Te
* On 4/20/20 10:48 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> For sure it fails the Dissident Test.
> Does it? The part which requires the availability of the source changes
> explicitly
> talks about deployment of the software, i.e. distribution, not personal use
> which
> would be the criteria for
* On 4/20/20 9:03 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Secondly, for the APSL-1.2, it seems that the only clause that makes the
> license non-DFSG-compliant is this one:
>
> > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly
> > available under the terms of this
* On 12/20/19 9:59 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity],
> a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger.
>
> However, when I saw the README, it says:
>
>> Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge
>>
* On 8/18/19 10:02 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> [...] and not
> NC and ND variant ones? I had tried to find the explanation on this
> mailing list, but seems like there is nothing found.
In very short: the NC part conflicts with point 6: "No Discrimination Against
Fields of Endeavor", because it d
* On 8/7/19 12:58 PM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Agreed. There is no way to obtain tacit permission for anything except
> what the copyright holder has already declared (except for copyright
> expiration, but that takes veeery long). In order to relicense, explicit
> permission must be given by e
* On 8/7/19 9:31 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> In the interests of having Veracrypt be distributable by Debian,
> all Veracrypt code must be licensed accordingly.
>
> This can be done by public notice (see below).
Re-licensing can be a difficult, lengthy process and - as far as I've seen in
the on
On July 3, 2019 1:55:04 AM GMT+02:00, Simon McVittie wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 at 15:20:37 -0400, Nat Tuck wrote:
>> It'd probably be necessary to go through the packages in main and see
>> if any other packages download and install proprietary software at
>all,
>> or if this is just Firefox eve
Hi
Since no one has answered so far, I feel free to chime in.
* On 5/12/19 9:39 PM, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
>
> We ask Debian to consider removing and stop distributing Seafile packages [1]
> due to copyright concerns. [...]
First of all, thank you for your in-depth analysis and bringing t
IANAL:
* On 09/17/2018 07:14 PM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On 09/09/2018 12:51 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> My understanding is that the entire operating system is delivered as
>> packages, and each package declares its copyright information in its
>> ‘/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGENAME/copyright’ document
* On 02/26/2018 10:28 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> The LGPL-2.1 starts with
>
> | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> ^^
>
> I am therefore wondering whet
* On 01/30/2018 02:08 PM, Daniel Hakimi wrote:
> This is allowed, but it is not an exception or modification to the GPL. You
> cannot remove permissions from the GPL under any circumstances. Rather, this
> is
> allowed because the GPL is, in no way, a trademark license. If anything, the
> above co
Hi
While working on a package (not yet part of Debian), I noticed the following
copyright and license notice:
# This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
# modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions of
# the GNU General Public License v.2, or
23 matches
Mail list logo
