Re: legalities of distributing debian pre-installed iso images.

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, i have a question about the single CD that was distributed at > LinuxTag for example, did it also include the soruces, or was an > arrangement like that already done ? For 2002 it doesnt include sources. If someone wants a Source CD i made one, burn

Bug#244289: xball: Package includes non-free source code.

Package: xball Severity: serious Hi The package xball contains the source file act_area.c and the license for it is the following: Written by Dan Heller. Copyright 1991, O'Reilly && Associates. This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is provided without guara

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> we have bad news for your filesystems :(( it happens that some sections >> of the license are not compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines [0]. > Who is Domenico Andreoli? I have not noticed them as a debian-legal > summariser before. Who asked for th

PHP License for stuff thats not PHP itself

Hi While doing a bit of work in the NEW queue Ive seen stuff using the PHP license (exact version doesnt matter, they differ from package to package, take http://www.php.net/license/2_02.txt or http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt as examples). (3.0 in this case taken). It starts like a random free

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Sven Luther schrieb: > Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star > packages which comes with this clause : Wrong. > So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed > it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master respons

Re: Is libreludedb DFSG compliant?

On 10518 March 1977, Mickael Profeta wrote: > As it was linked with GPL libraries, I think the package is GPL and can > go to main, what is your opinion? You didnt mention that it includes LGPLed works in the source tarball. -- bye Joerg Endianess is the dispute on which end to open an egg at.

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License > is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This > claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter > at debian-legal. So lets look at that

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. > No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > acknowledgment: > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from >

Re: Question about upstream duty as regards with OpenSSL

On 10596 March 1977, Pierre Machard wrote: > I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to > publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am > involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite > some parts of the licence)

Re: Question about upstream duty as regards with OpenSSL

On 10597 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote: > Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates > stored anywhere public? Nope. > Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/legal/ please? I'll > put a link back when I remember how. Most rejections are free form text (for the debian

MPL license

Hi Whats debian-legals position about the MPL? Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really non-free" mails. So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? (Hopefully not a "check every package if it has ", l

Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: > I am merely a Debian user, yet I feel frustrated by the way these guys > are making whatever they want with Sarge, and don't bother to change > the name to (say) "Linux Magazin Special Sarge Edition" or something. That was done by me for Cebit,

Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

On 10717 March 1977, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: > 2. It clearly contains packages not on the official update list. AFAIK, > backports like FF1.5 and X.org are not _official_ for Sarge. Yes, where is the problem? Before I go on answering some small points in your mail - you do remember that Deb

Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

On 10718 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Yes, they attached it to the Magazine. And gave us a good number of >> dvds for free. > When posting on such questions using your debian.org email address, please > try to be clear about what "us" you're referring to. I have never heard > that LinuxMa

Re: main or contrib?

On 10816 March 1977, Al Nikolov wrote: > Please clarify for me, in which section should go a GPL-licensed package, > which is quite unusable without (but technically not Depends on), er, > obscure blobs of data, usually gathered by a way of sniffing data flow > between a proprietary application an

Re: is scilab really non-free?

Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > May we discuss scilab's license, please? Scilab is currently assumed to > be non-free because of one sentence(1) in its license text > http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/license.txt : >Any commercial use or circulation of the DERIVED SOFTWARE shall >

Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?

On 10298 March 1977, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > As some of you might know some time ago I created a web page for > listing information about licenses discussed by debian-legal > at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again > u

Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?

<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> On 10301 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote: > Well, this is the first ftpmaster post to legal I've seen for > months and it's a troll :-/ Pot and kettle one, too. Im not a master, just a slave. > Joerg, if you want to make your life easier, try opening bugs > about any

Re: License missing in the tarball but present on the website

On 10997 March 1977, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote: > Upstream published an errata on the website. The don't have a gpg key to > sign the post: > http://vdrift.net/article.php/license-change-2007-03-23-release > I will copy the post in the debian/changelog with a link to the website. > Is it enough? deb

Re: New Ion3 licence

On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the >> "official" software being distributed timely and only from one source, >> usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable >> rammifications of their choice. I would rec

Re: dcraw license change: (see bug #424663)

On 11071 March 1977, Steve King wrote: >>If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my >>homepage qualifies as "full source code". Thats ok. -- bye Joerg (13:24) ist iptables eigentlich nur ein tool zum verhindern von aussenkonnecti,erungen auf gewissen ports oder ist

Re: GFDL and cover texts

On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-06-08 at 08:58 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> > Can I get an explanation of why Debian considers a GFDL manual with >> > cover texts non-free? >> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml> >> http://ww

Re: Skype license

On 11109 March 1977, Øystein Gisnås wrote: > I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute > Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not > compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be > done with Skype's license to make it distri

Re: Skype license

On 0 March 1977, Mario Iseli wrote: >> > I got a request from a Skype employee who was eager to distribute >> > Skype with Debian. I replied that the current license probably is not >> > compatible with DFSG and promised to ask debian-legal what has to be >> > done with Skype's license to make

Re: Licensing of package nauty

On 11274 March 1977, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> I can ask the author if would distribute under some DFSG free license, >> but in the case that he declines, is there any other clarification >> needed before it can be included in non-free? > This looks like it gives us permission to distribute it in

Re: ITP: debian-backports-keyring -- GnuPG archive key of the backports.org repository

On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote: > Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write. Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly clear by itself that debian-legal does NOT do any lawyers work (and w

Re: Documentation copyright/licensing

On 11441 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Now, each HTML file contains this comment: > Generated by Doxygen 1.3.9.1 > Each file also contains this footer: > Copyright © 2005-2008 Intel Corporation. All Rights Reserved. > When I inquired in #debian-devel, AzaThat indicated that the "All Ri

Re: Public Domain for Germans

On 11558 March 1977, jfr fg wrote: > Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text, > if I want the result to be dfsg-free? > I, the creator of this work, > hereby release it into the public domain. > This applies worldwide. > In case this is not legally possible, > I gran

AGPL and Debian

Hi, recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian. The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems). Reason: The concerns people have expressed with

Re: AGPL and Debian

On 11583 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked > about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian. > The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can > go into main. (Provided they don't have a

Re: AGPL and Debian

> All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for > the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting > services for people needing to put their personal modifications not > suiteable for a general public consumption and not interested in any > further wor

Re: [non-free] Packaging a closed-source application with limited distribution access

On 11873 March 1977, Pau Garcia i. Quiles wrote: > Given that the freely downloadable tarball will NOT accept commercial > license keys, I need to package a commercial version of the tarball. I > have been told this should not be a problem for Intersystems (I > waiting for a definitive answer on t

Re: Art content licensing question

> Okay, here's a brief explanation of what it is that I'm trying to > accomplish. There are a significant number of artists out there who would > like to contribute art (graphics, music, etc) to FOSS game projects, but are > nervous about their work being exploited through loopholes in licenses l

Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

> Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with > crockford > himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not > use the software." Then his software will simply be not packaged. -- bye, Joerg http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argu

Re: US government notification of new crypto package?

>> > which seems to indicate I need to update the US Bureau of Export >> > Administration before uploading this package for the first time. >> > Is this still a requirement? >> IIRC the archive software (dak) does this automatically for every new >> package (or every upload, not sure) whether it co

Re: debian.* domains

> Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.* > domain and donate it to the project, please contact > hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it. Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of Domain handling for Debian. -- bye, Joerg My first contact with

Re: debian.* domains

>> > Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.* >> > domain and donate it to the project, please contact >> > hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it. >> Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of >> Domain handling for Debian. > Cool. Does http://www

Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

>> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are >> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the >> source files are TeX documents. > Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it > means by source code? > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS f

Re: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Binary Code License Agreement

On 12853 March 1977, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > I recently received a report that jai-* packages may not be > compatible with debian non-free. Specifically I am looking at > jai-core's MEDIALIB FOR JAI/SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS section 2: > ... > 2. License to Distribute Software. In addition

Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception

On 13107 March 1977, Giulio Paci wrote: > During a package review it came out that the software license includes > this statement: "Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General > Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed > to have been agreed upon which come

Re: Suitable license for Distkeys SSH key distribution tool

On 13147 March 1977, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > We did not finally decide on a license. Current favorite is GPL 2 or later > which should be compatible with the licenses the libraries the script use > use[1]. > ruby: Ruby 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL) > ruby-net-ssh: Expat > ruby-net-ssh-g

Re: On accepting pre-generated doc from upstream

On 13235 March 1977, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > As a possible workaround, upstream has suggested to provide the documentation > already generated (could be for the submodules and/or the full doc, this has > not been discussed yet). My first reaction has been to think that this

Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?

On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > The new license for AMD microcode updates seems to be quite obnoxious. Yes. > Is it acceptable for non-free? Yes. non-free doesn't need much more than us being able to distribute it. Except, ... > Without limiting the foregoing, the Sof

Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?

On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> > Without limiting the foregoing, the Software may implement third party >> > technologies for which You must obtain licenses from parties other >> > than AMD. You agree that AMD has not obtained or conveyed to You, and >> > that You shall

Re: Font license and inclusion in debian (RTP 719605)

On 13304 March 1977, Vincent Lhote wrote: > Conditions of use > You may: > -Install the fonts on as many devices as you wish. > -Distribute the fonts to anyone you wish. > -Use the fonts in any commercial or non-commercial document. > -Save the fonts in a format that would best fit your purposes.

Re: redistributability of two software pieces in non-free

On 13334 March 1977, Johannes Schauer wrote: > While this software violates dfsg without doubt, I wonder if it could be > distributed in non-free because it states that it can only be copied for > academic use. Is copying equal to distribution? Not it can't, as it forbids redistribution. Which is

Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?

On 14516 March 1977, Markus Frosch wrote: > What's your opinion about that clause? non-free -- bye, Joerg

Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2

On 15317 March 1977, أحمد المحمودي wrote: Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice. This is the authoritative Arabic version of the li

Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2

On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: None of the ftpteam, to my knowledge, is able to read and understand the arabic version, and this english translation is saying its worth nothing. This sound like a severe cultural limitation though, affecting all non-english developers and users. Can a

Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2

On 15317 March 1977, Giacomo Tesio wrote: Best: Someone (read: License author) could publish a translation that is not saying "I'm rubbish". Are you sure that it's entirely possible? No idea. It's not always possible to perform a lossless translation between two human languages, and I'm no

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

On 15622 March 1977, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: Recently I stumble upon Transity [https://github.com/feramhq/transity], a plain-text accounting system a la (H)Ledger. However, when I saw the README, it says: Transity is licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later and can be used free of charge at non-profits an

Re: whitakers-words_0.2020.10.27-1_multi.changes REJECTED

On 15944 March 1977, calumlikesapplepie wrote: I thought this might happen: the license is unconventional, and I wasn't sure it would fly. I cc'ed debian-legal in this response: I'm pretty sure the license is DFSG-free, but IANAL, and they can confirm in a way I can't. I'm curious to read o