In addition to David Given's warning, which I agree with and I find reason
enough to not consider eawpats DFSG-free, I add the following.
Andrew Suffield quoted the license for eawpats:
So, basicly[sic] you can not use the analog drums or the pistol files in any
commercial work. This is out of
J.B. Nicholson-Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I release these patches as fameware. If you use them in any non-private
way, give me credit. These patches are not to be sold for profit (heaven
forbid). They were free when I got them and so they shall remain.
Here's where my problem lies:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 10:59:45AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The barrapunto article makes it clear that the academy (hmm, perhaps
trade school is better English?) is not holding this trademark for the
benefit of the Debian community.
academy is right:
n 1: a secondary
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 13:23:28 +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
Freeswan upstream developers are currently thinking of switch to openssl.
I already pointed out to them that this might need a change in their own
(GPL) license statement so that linking to openssl is explicitly allowed.
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:23:28PM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
The reason why freeswan can currently not go into main is an issue with some
code license that is bundled with it. I am struggling with this for quite
some time now and at the moment I need some help to clarify it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Steve Langasek wrote:
| Which parts of freeswan link against libdes? According to
| /usr/share/doc/freeswan/copyright, some parts are LGPL. Do we know for
| sure that libdes+GPL is happening?
No, not for sure. However, since the copyright situation
Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
Freeswan (the user space daemon and the kernel module) needs Eric Young's
libdes to work.
I know from researching for mindterm that version 3.06 of Eric Young's
libdes (from 1993) was licensed under the GPL. I don't know how much the
libdes library has changed since then,
Mail list logo