Hi!
The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions
'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'.
I added it to the wiki.
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d
How to get a final / official verdict about it?
-mr
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote:
Hi!
The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions
'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'.
I added it to the wiki.
Francesco Poli schrieb:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote:
Hi!
The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions
'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'.
I added it to the wiki.
This one time, at band camp, Michael Reichenbach said:
Hi!
The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions
'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'.
I added it to the wiki.
Hello,
Foreword : I'm not part of the debian-legal team. I'm just taking care
of keeping the wiki clean.
I removed the Truecrypt license from the page because :
* This license is specific to a single package. A bug might me more
appropriate to track that. (IMHO).
* The state of that license is
Truecrypt 4.2a has just been released, with a revised license:
http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php. Can someone please take a look at
it and see if it looks more like a free license? Thanks, Andrew.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Truecrypt 4.2a has just been released, with a revised license:
http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php. Can someone please take a look at
it and see if it looks more like a free license? Thanks, Andrew.
My criticisms seem to be addressed adequately. Others might have
but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
are both approved as free software license by the FSF,
and as open source license by the OSI) require exactly
the
Michael Poole wrote:
First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
it is non-free to require a distributor to serve
copies of the work to third parties
Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually
do require distributor to serve copies of the work to
third parties.
Vagueness
First and foremost, if you're going to contribute on this list, please
stop using aliases and start using your real name so that others
understand on whose behalf you are speaking and more importantly, can
connect your arguments with arguments you have made previously.
Second, arguing on freeness
but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
are both approved as free software license by the FSF,
and as open source license by the OSI) require exactly
the
dtufs writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
it is non-free to require a distributor to serve
copies of the work to third parties
Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually
do require distributor to serve copies of the work to
dtufs writes:
That's true, but you don't get to stake the moral
high ground *after* replying at the same level.
I wasn't at the same level. I just stated my opinion
on how things work in the real world. In contrast, the
other poster had directly insulted the person who
wrote the
of this list have spotted
errors in licensing of material copyright FSF before.
However, the Truecrypt licence is not listed by FSF.
Approval by the failed Open Source Initiative is irrelevant.
From these facts, I would judge (1) that you are not
qualified to tell whether a license adheres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do, but those clauses have been pointed out as being problematic
multiple times. Copyright licenses should not need to invoke copyright
law to secure protections which trademark law grants to trademarks.
And still, nobody has been able to convincingly explain why
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do, but those clauses have been pointed out as being problematic
multiple times. Copyright licenses should not need to invoke copyright
law to secure protections which trademark law grants to trademarks.
And still, nobody
--- MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter who is correct, I think it is unhelpful to
imply that others are not dealing in reality,
especially on matters of opinion.
I think it is equally unhelpful to post personal
remarks, such as: The license shows many signs of
being written by someone
dtufs writes:
Michael Poole writes:
One sign is the frequent use of alternatives --
features/functionalities, product/modifications,
and so forth -- rather than defining a minimal set
of terms up front and using them later.
In reality, use of alternatives, either in brackets or
: ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO
USE THE PROGRAM
The quoted GPL section 5 does not cover use, so is not equal to a
Truecrypt Licence section covering use. Please do not cut context to
make statements look wrong.
Please, try not to start every other paragraph with You are wrong.
Hope
Michael Poole writes:
One sign is the frequent use of alternatives --
features/functionalities, product/modifications,
and so forth -- rather than defining a minimal set
of terms up front and using them later.
In reality, use of alternatives, either in brackets or
slash-separated can only
dtufs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Poole writes:
One sign is the frequent use of alternatives [...]
In reality [...]
No matter who is correct, I think it is unhelpful to imply
that others are not dealing in reality, especially on matters
of opinion.
My reply is abbreviated because this licence
Hi all
I was looking at truecrypt, and noticed that the licence is not
considered 'free' by Klause Knopper[1], but i don't see a view from
debian-legal. does anyone know if this licence [2] would be free enough
to ship with debian?
Or, for that matter, if its come up before on the list and i
Karl Goetz writes:
Hi all
I was looking at truecrypt, and noticed that the licence is not
considered 'free' by Klause Knopper[1], but i don't see a view from
debian-legal. does anyone know if this licence [2] would be free
enough to ship with debian?
Or, for that matter, if its come up
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Karl Goetz writes:
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-knoppix/2006/06/msg00019.html
[2] http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php
[...]
Overall, this seems like a fairly pointless and dangerous but not
clearly unfree license; GPLv2 or v2+ with SSL exception and a
MJ Ray wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Karl Goetz writes:
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-knoppix/2006/06/msg00019.html
[2] http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php
[...]
Overall, this seems like a fairly pointless and dangerous but not
clearly unfree license; GPLv2 or v2+ with SSL
25 matches
Mail list logo
