Re: is kde and kde app source debian-legally distributable?

1998-12-03 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 08:15:11 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: There's a reason for us not to distribute debian sources: contributory infringement. (We're getting into the really hypothetical here, as Troll and KDE are working to make this discussion moot, but...) If I understand you correctly,

Re: is kde and kde app source debian-legally distributable?

1998-12-04 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 13:52:14 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: You're asserting your conclusion as your argument. This gets nowhere. Raul, I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. To the best of my knowledge, The conflict between KDE's and Qt's

Re: nasm license: is this DFSG free?

1998-12-10 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 16:44:52 +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote: Here's a copy of the license. Any comments will be greatly appreciated; the author is willing to change it if it doesn't meet our needs. The nasm author(s) have said they'd release it under GPL; that would clear all problems.

Re: Non-US and patents

1999-08-02 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 18:20:45 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: +/* NIST Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) effort. The algorithm */ +/* is subject to Patent action by IBM, who intend to offer royalty */ +/* free use if a Patent is granted.*/ This

Re: GIF encoding can be free?

1999-09-22 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 08:31:08 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: The author claims that this implementation is free from patent problems. I can't say I'm particularly impressed by it, it looks somewhat like an attempt to put the blame elsewhere and possibly a confusion of copyright and patents. I

Re: Lizard / Debian

1999-09-28 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:46:04 +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote: Personally, I would say Yes it is interesting, BUT: Lizard is released under the QPL, which is incompatible to the GPL. Yes. I'm quite sure that somehow this will prevent us from using it without worrying about license issues

Re: pptp, ppp with Microsoft encryption

1999-09-30 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 10:34:30 +, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: Is RC4 encryption a problem with the US export laws ? I suspect so. It may depend on the bitsize (IIRC, regular netscape uses 40-bit RC4), but even for the case of an allowed bitsize, an export license might be required. What about

Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)

1999-10-23 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:04:08 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Barf with a spoon. Is that so? Yes. See e.g. perlfaq(1p).

Re: MMIX license OK for main?

1999-11-12 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 21:37:13 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: There's got to be someone at Stanford who can get to him. See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html for contact details. Ray -- Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.

Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

1999-11-19 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 14:36:56 -0800, Joey Hess wrote: The Debian mutt package also continues to ignore the wishes of mutt's upstream authors, who do belive mutt contains crypto hooks, and who only make the version available from outside the US for that reason. Mutt's current primary

Open Source Motif

2000-05-15 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
TOG have released Motif under an Open Source license which isn't. (See also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 ) Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/: Open Source programs mean software for which the source code is available without confidential or

Re: When will KDE and Debian get together?

2000-05-25 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 08:53:06 -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote: However, if you search the packages list on the official Debian web site, Qt1 is there large as life in the non-free section True. The license terms on Qt1 allow for us to distribute binaries; they do not meet the Debian Free Software

Re: Fwd: Re: Liscencing Issue - Taking Action

2000-06-12 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:44:07 +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: I think parts of the Debian+KDE discussion on the KDE Maillist will be interesting for you too. Quite frankly, I doubt it - I see numerous misunderstandings that have been covered many times already. On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, did

Re: Interbase Licence

2000-07-27 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: Is this free? Who will package it? http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0003/msg00451.html HTH, Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to

Re: Is this patch OK for main?

2001-04-10 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
[I'm probably repeating myself, but this is for the benefit of debian-legal readers and may help to shorten discussion] On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 16:10:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: could someone please tell me if this patch: - contains any code with legal problems (e.g. patents)? Not that I'm

Re: Adpcm code--is this licence free?

2001-09-18 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58 -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense. As a side note, CWI (the Mathematisch Centrum) have prior experience in free software related licensing issues as e.g. Python was originally developed there. One option is

Re: Can GPLed programs use Heimdal?

2001-11-14 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:05:33 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:21:04AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: The Heimdal implementation links against libssl in order to get its crypto. How does this effect GPLed applications? Note that the applications do not normally call

Re: linux gpl question

2002-04-27 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that NeXTStep distributed only the object files It's in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by RMS, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html Consider GNU

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

2002-08-07 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if there is a

Re: Bug#156503: microsoft changed its policy, msttcorefonts broken

2002-08-17 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:12:46 -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: After consulting with debian-legal, I emailed Bigelow and Holmes tonight to ask them to reconsider the license they have chosen so that they can be included in debian. If anyone is interested, I can post that email here. You may

OpenSSL-linked exim

2002-08-21 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 16:19:48 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution of binaries which also contain OpenSSL code. Quoting the NOTICE file from the Exim 3.36 source: :Copyright (c) 1999 University of Cambridge : :This program is free

Re: Are software patents legal in .nl?

2002-09-08 Thread J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 00:38:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Are software patents legal in .nl? IANAL, but AFAIK the answer is Yes, or at least Effectively yes. The Netherlands are a member of the European Union which is working on regulations that explicitly allow software patents (albeit

Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)

2002-09-11 Thread J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)
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. Perhaps you