Hi,
On 17.12.2013 09:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
There is only an issue with distributing the bundled work if you distribute
it as a binary.
They still ship old binaries [1] and in the same .deb file they ship the
source with the other_libs directory containing third party libraries,
some of
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:59:14AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com writes:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that if one uses the source of a
GPL licensed program to build another program, this has to be
distributed under the GPL as well.
[Resending this, as my last mail seems not to have made it to the list.]
Hi Ben,
thanks for your review of the license.
As I found it unsatisfactory, that chroma is distributed under a
non-free license, I took a closer look at the source code searching for
other licenses.
Chroma (build
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com writes:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that if one uses the source of a
GPL licensed program to build another program, this has to be
distributed under the GPL as well. (Section 2. b) of the GPL)
That's roughly correct; the act which
On 16.12.2013 21:59, Ben Finney wrote:
That's roughly correct; the act which requires licensing the whole work
under GPL is to distribute a “derivative work” of the prior GPL-licensed
work; see URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work.
They distribute source tarballs of chroma [1]
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com writes:
Could you do this, as I feel, I don't have enough legal knowledge to
write a proper mail about this.
If you're asking me personally, then I must decline. I don't have enough
interest in that work to mediate that discussion. Thank you
Hi,
I'm using the Chroma software for lattice QCD simulations [1]. In the
past I downloaded the source code from git (e.g. [2]) and compiled the
binaries on my machine, but I think it would be nice to have a Debian
package for it.
The paper about chroma [3] states that Chroma is an open
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com writes:
The license distributed through git is the file COPYING (attached).
Not being a lawyer I don't feel competent to judge, whether this
license is DFSG-free or not, so I'm asking for your opinion.
Thank you for taking care with the
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:44:52 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals wrote:
[...]
5. This license of use of the Software shall be governed by the laws
of Japan, and the Kyoto District Court shall have exclusive primary
jurisdiction with respect to
2010/7/18 Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals siegfr...@gevatter.com:
One potential sponsor also expressed concern about point 6.
Oops, point 5 that is :).
Thanks for your comments. So non-free it is...
By the way, the concerns with point 3 were raised upstream
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:25:03 +0200 Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals
wrote:
[...]
Out of curiosity, could someone please elaborate (or point me to some
page) on why the venue clause is a problem?
[...]
Choice of venue clauses have been discussed to death on the
debian-legal mailing list, with
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:54:32PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals siegfr...@gevatter.com wrote:
I'm particularly concerned about point 3 asking for the software to be
mentioned on any published/presented results of its use, although
this requirement doesn't seem
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals wrote:
2. In the event you provide to any third party all or any portion of
the Software, whether for copying, duplication, adaptation,
modification, preparation of a derivative work, aggregation with
another program, insertion into another
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
[I'm Cc:ing Roberto, who asked to be Cc:ed, but probably didn't see
Joe's reply]
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:03:47 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
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
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[I'm Cc:ing Roberto, who asked to be Cc:ed, but probably didn't see
Joe's reply]
Thanks Francesco.
This is the type of messed up license obtained when a lawyer never looks
over the license, and the drafter is not familar
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:25:20 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
[ Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to -legal ]
Done.
I was recently asked to sponsor an upload of a package that carries the
below license. Is this license acceptable for main?
[...]
The license you quoted
[ Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to -legal ]
I was recently asked to sponsor an upload of a package that carries the
below license. Is this license acceptable for main?
Regards,
-Roberto
-88--
18 matches
Mail list logo
