On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:13:25PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> > OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
> > module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>
> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth
On Mon, May 13, 2013 15:31, Walter Landry wrote:
> "Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
>>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
>>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>>
>> This seems like a paper exercise which I
"Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>
> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts.
>
> I seems extremely unli
On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts.
I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software c
OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
O.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
>> But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source f
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files
> per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil.
Right. The non-free part of the archive is for such software. Debian
main consists only of free software (
But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files
per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil.
And since we will not be using those source files, it seems to be ok
to distribute them as part of upstream tarball. But IANAL...
Ondrej
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
> use them to compile the extension?
Source packages are part of main too and thus should not contain non-free stuff.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To U
Hey,
just to clarify.
Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
use them to compile the extension?
Remi from Fedora has prepared patch on top of json-c, which will
replace this extension, so I will patch those files away. I just want
to avoid the dfsg-repacking if possi
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> This situation is a bit confusing because it sounds as though there
> are two files involved, both called "jsmin": "the library" is a
> translation of the original jsmin non-Python library into Python
> ("Good, not Evil" license inhe
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:01:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko :
>
> > Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors.
> > So it's up to users to choose which one to use.
>
> I see.
>
> > I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py i
On 26/04/12 11:41, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote:
> I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in
> package will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper"
> around non-free jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from
> LICENSE.
>
> Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper
2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko :
> Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors.
> So it's up to users to choose which one to use.
I see.
> I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package
> will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper" ar
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:24:31PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I've a few ideas how to at least workaround it:
> > - repack upstream tarball and replace jsmin.py with stub one that returns
> > original JS without compressing.
>
> Suboptimal but acceptable in main.
I'll follow this way for now
>
2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko :
> I'm going to package django-pipeline, that is licensed under MIT/Expat
> license except one file, that is MIT/Expat too but with one addede
> sentence:
> https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> jsmin.py (License-information from the f
oftware, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>> The Software shall be used for Good, not Ev
Hi!
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud schrieb:
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Josselin Mouette schrieb:
Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt.
Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil"
one could argue, that everything is good... for someone.
W
Thomas Koch writes:
> Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with
> crockford himself.
Thank you for pursuing this matter in good faith and trying to get a
satisfactory resolution.
> His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not use
> the software."
> Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with
> crockford
> himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not
> use the software."
Then his software will simply be not packaged.
--
bye, Joerg
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argu
Le Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:56:44PM -0500, Joe Neal a écrit :
>
> http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code
Hi Joe,
have you seen the comment of Joey Hess, that it ‘Looks like the jsmin.py in
libv8 is now a reimplementation with a standard license.’
Have a nice week-end,
--
Charl
It looks like the guy makes exceptions anyway:
> Douglas: That's an interesting point. Also about once a year, I get a
> letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company--I don't
> want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their
> initials--IBM...
>
> [l
> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Neither term has any objective meaning and there is no shortage of people with
philosophy phds willing to state such as their expert opinion. Assuming good
and evil are both subjective terms, the license merely states that "The
Softwar
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Josselin Mouette schrieb:
>> Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt.
>
> Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil"
> one could argue, that everything is good... for someone.
>
> However, I would strongl
ase give me a definitive Yes 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.
Hmmm... Actually... As he didn't gave a definition of "good" or "evil"
one cou
e software."
>>
>> Could you please give me a definitive Yes 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.
It is certainly a bizarre licence, and it
you please give me a definitive Yes 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
ftware.
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHOR
27 matches
Mail list logo
