work from upstream code? If yes, must be the
license GPL-3+ or not?
I didn't understand the fact of the upstream use GPL-3+ and debian/
can be GPL-2+ or other because I am thinking about derivative work.
Thanks!
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
Thanks Ian!
Pierre, you need think about what to do.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-09-16 13:46 GMT-03:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
At DC14 we had a conversation about the fact that at the moment it is
not possible for a user to say only once, when installing Debian
2014-09-16 14:53 GMT-03:00 Pierre Rudloff cont...@rudloff.pro:
Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games'
licence.
So I guess we should add it to contrib ?
I think that it is the better way.
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
IMHO you can use GPL-2, considering 1999-2002 (or nearly) as upstream date.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAP
After some time, I came back.
Thanks a lot for all replies. I will file a bug now.
Regards,
Eriberto
, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).
Thanks a lot for your help!
Regards,
Eriberto
2015-10-18 19:06 GMT-02:00 Ángel González <keis...@gmail.com>:
> I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.
>
> However, in addition to the license in the README file
bug without ask
for opinions in debian-legal because the package is in Debian several
years without problems.
Thanks a lot to Riley, Ángel and Ben.
Cheers,
Eriberto
, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).
Thanks a lot for your help!
Regards,
Eriberto
2015-10-18 19:06 GMT-02:00 Ángel González <keis...@gmail.com>:
> I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.
>
> However, in addition to the license in the README file
acted].
>>
>
>
IMO it is not DFSG compatible. Sounds like GPL-3+ and my own terms. However
these terms are not compliant with GPL and there are restrictions to usage.
Regards,
Eriberto
, such as the requirement to
provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result,
the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released
under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
-
Can someone confirm it?
Thanks.
Regards,
Eriberto
of the junction of
these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue?
Thanks,
Eriberto
2014-08-21 19:08 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org:
Yes, sorry for not being clear: by « if combined » I meant debian/patches.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
Thanks all for explanations. This question is clear to me now.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJe
the
possibility to install proprietary and commercial games too. So, what
is the better section for lutris?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
[1] https://github.com/lutris/lutris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
the conventional FSL GPL text (as here[2]).
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
IMHO, this generical case imposes a GPL-2 license, not a GPL-2+,
because the upstream didn't explain his intent in source code.
What is your opinion?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
and ask for upstream to change the headers. So, my
initial POV will be kept.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAP
be an incentive to add an appropriate license
grant.
[G1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section9
--
Josué M. Abarca S.
Ok, but it is an option to final user. A package can't impose a
version. A package must describe the original upstream license only.
Eriberto
.
Regards,
Eriberto
Hi,
The distorm3 upstream relicensed the source code from GPL3+ to
BSD-4-Clause. I think it is wrong but I didn't found references about
it. So, I need opinions about this issue.
Regards,
Eriberto
Thanks Charles.
The distorm3 is a dependency for volatility and I am concerned.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2016-05-31 20:50 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org>:
>
> if the distorm3 upstream developer fully holds the copyright on the software,
> then he can relicense as he wish
tible license for this wordlist?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
lso a list about what don't to use for
security.
However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian.
Regards,
Eriberto
Hi all,
Thanks for your opinions. I will drop my idea about to package this wordlist.
Thanks!
Eriberto
2016-09-22 1:24 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org>:
>> Eriberto Mota <eribe...@debian.org> writes:
>>
>> > However, I will wait more opinions
and other
rights must be explicit in license text.
Reagrds,
Eriberto
to work if it is necessary. It is
similar to traditional configure file, made by hand. I don't see a
real problem here. However, Pabs agrees with Helmut here[3].
I still have doubts about if this situation is a DFSG violation and I
need more opinions.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
[1
s needs a proper
> upstream project to exist and be active, remove the embedded code copy
> and port the diff to a newer libjpeg and upstream that and then get
> that uploaded to Debian.
I agree.
Cheers,
Eriberto
ad, upload your package"?
Regards,
Eriberto
hanged the licensing to GPL-3+ without a
permission from previous copyright holders, that are inactive. Is
possible do it, only considering the plus signal in previous licensing
(GPL-2+)?
Regards,
Eriberto
several
packages[1] in main section using this license.
[1]
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=duplicated+in+all+such+forms+and+that+any+documentation%2C+advertising=1
Regards,
Eriberto
28 matches
Mail list logo
