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

2016-03-19 Thread Ben Finney
Ian Jackson writes: > Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > > One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties > > under the same conditions.

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION] [Apache 2.0]

2016-03-19 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: Finally the upstream maintainers of the nauty software suite has adopted the Apache 2.0 License. [1] Thanks a lot for your constructive comments, Jerome [1] http://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION] [Apache 2.0]

2016-03-19 Thread Ben Finney
Jerome BENOIT writes: > Finally the upstream maintainers of the nauty software suite has adopted > the Apache 2.0 License. [1] > > Thanks a lot for your constructive comments, Excellent news! Thank you for your diligence and congratulations on this good result. -- \ “The surest way to c

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

2016-03-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > Knoppix needs: > > > > - permission from upstream for Knoppix modify and redistribute the > > modified versions. This is granted directly to Knoppix by >

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

2016-03-15 Thread Ian Jackson
Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"): > One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under > the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3. Such a sublice

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION]

2016-03-12 Thread Ben Finney
Jerome BENOIT writes: > Finally I get a feed back from the upstream. Thank you, Jerome, for engaging the copyright holders effectively to improve the freedom of software recipients. > Please find below the new version: what do you think ? > […] > [[Modified versions of the software and works d

Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ? [IMPROVED VERSION]

2016-03-12 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum. Finally I get a feed back from the upstream. Please find below the new version: what do you think ? Thanks, Jerome - This is the [[license]] for the softwar

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

2016-03-12 Thread Riley Baird
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0100 (CET) Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: > > >> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > >> clarify their Copyright. > > > > I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't w

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

2016-03-12 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: thanks a lot for your constructive comments. On 12/03/16 04:37, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : >> Jerome BENOIT writes: >> >>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: That lic

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

2016-03-12 Thread Riley Baird
What enforcement actions can you possibly see arising from this? On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:16:43 -0500 Tony Rutkowski wrote: > So who bears the exposure to litigation or > enforcement actions? > -tony > > On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > > I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say

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

2016-03-12 Thread Thorsten Alteholz
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote: Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to clarify their Copyright. I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP masters reject

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

2016-03-12 Thread Tony Rutkowski
So who bears the exposure to litigation or enforcement actions? -tony On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote: I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP masters reject it, you can deal with the probl

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

2016-03-11 Thread Riley Baird
> > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in > > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. > > > Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to > clarify their Copyright. I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth t

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

2016-03-11 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: On 12/03/16 03:39, Ben Finney wrote: > Jerome BENOIT writes: > >> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: >>> That licence is fine. >>> >> So now step forward in peace. > > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in >

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

2016-03-11 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Jerome BENOIT writes: > > > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: > > > That licence is fine. > > > > > So now step forward in peace. > > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree wi

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

2016-03-11 Thread Riley Baird
> One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under > the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3. I think that you're misinterpreting DFSG §3. A user needs the right to distribute the work such that the people

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

2016-03-11 Thread Ben Finney
Jerome BENOIT writes: > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: > > That licence is fine. > > > So now step forward in peace. Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. -- \ “I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but

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

2016-03-11 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that the new

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

2016-03-11 Thread Ben Finney
Ben Finney writes: > Permission is hereby given for the use, distribution and > modification of this software subject to the following. > * You must include this copyright notice with all distributed > copies of this software, including modified copies. > * You must clearly mark modified

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

2016-03-11 Thread Ben Finney
Jerome BENOIT writes: > [1] https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nauty.html > [2] http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/nauty/COPYRIGHT.txt It is very helpful to have the verbatim text of the license in the discussion thread for reference. Here is the content of the “COPYRIGHT.txt” document today:

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

2016-03-11 Thread Riley Baird
> >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new > >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. > >> > >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that > >> the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant. That licence is fine. pgpAVpU96_Kgu

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

2016-03-11 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: On 11/03/16 13:47, MJ Ray wrote: > Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. >> >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you co

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

2016-03-11 Thread MJ Ray
Jerome BENOIT wrote: > One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright > notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. > > I am considering to migrate it to main: > please can you confirm that the new copyright notice is effectively > DFSG-conformant. Unless I'm going blind again

ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

2016-03-10 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum: One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible. I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant.