mercial
equivalents or community sources even in that.
Matt
- --
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFFweDKpldmHVvob7kRAgb6AKDGYZrBr+wQTUtxnTvGbAPf54Fy/gCfcqXR
a9DY0wE8tNK6pJtzSDY6HdI=
=
be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holder.
- ----
Matt
- --
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Mad
ne to use then.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
llow the rest of the game in contrib or, if we managed to
find some free songs to go with it, in main.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
rt of Teosto (which you have
to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician).
> I haven't read the full bug log, but has anyone contacted the
> composers directly?
Yes, we have. They are part of the upstream team and their contract forbids
them from releasing _any
This contradicts "Permission is hereby granted, ... to use, modify,"
above. May I suggest using a CCby licence and adding 'may only be
distributed with the game' rather than cobbling together your own
inconsistent one...
Matt
>
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
would also need t be run
past debian-legal and Teosto's legal team.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sectoid´s Frets on Fire Song Pack
Hello Matt, I´ve added the file "License.txt" with que MIT license
agreement, and put the license text in the comments of the .ogg files too.
I think I´ve well done, if I forg
Work except with the intention of it being used with
the Game.
and 1. g.:
"The Game" means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of
Frets on Fire.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the soundfonts are
> copyrightable works by themselves...
what if the recording was of actual people playing actual instruments?
You know, like people always used to. How to you generate that from
'source' at build time? what _is_ the source?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
rom the
work".
I certainly don't think it can be _worse_ than not including that block.
I'm not necessarily sure such schemes have to exist, it's more covering
their ass; like not using public domain, but an explicit licence, since
not everywhere has PD.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
lines, 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 non-free if
you can get it licenced under a DFSG-compatible licence.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
v.3, "Conveying Non-Source
> Forms".
So, do we need to have the sources all installed on our shell hosts? or
a written offer good for three years to provide the source?
Maybe having a deb-src line is good enough since users can run apt-get
source?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
x--x--x 1 root root 77352 2007-01-30 18:51 /bin/ls
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
do_
mandate such are regularly labelled as non-free here (see the desert
island test).
However, as you say, some code _is_ distributed, namely the Java
classes. Thus, the vender must comply with GPL section 6 for at least
those parts which are distributed.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
you may still be annoyed that they are running a modified
version without sending you the modifications, but this is allowed.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> the musical instrument are heard along with the pre-recorded audio and
> video portions.
There's certainly not one of these either.
I think Gibson are being very optimistic here and neither Activision nor
Debian have anything to worry about.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
in St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
This does imply that it's only being distributed with Debian. If so,
then I don't see a problem with this. The given wording is only an
example of a clear licence grant, it's in no way tied to the licence
itself.
Matt
--
Matt
ht? Or is wording like the following a _must_:
Yes, I would say it is. debian/copyright needs to give the licence
status for everything in the package, so any isomorphic declaration is
fine. It's just customary to copy the upstream declaration verbatim and
then add clarification below
On Sat Apr 05 10:00, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> On 08/04/04 21:21 +0100, Matthew Johnson said ...
> > On Sat Apr 05 00:06, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> >
> > > So if I am packaging a piece of software for Debian and the software is
> > > licensed
> &
On Thu Jun 05 18:02, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> What I'm thinking with a program that links with 2 libraries:
> NOT valid: progA[GPL]{libssl}
if this is not valid then neither is:
> valid: progA[GPL+ssl]{libssl,libB[GPL]}
here you are linking libssl and libB[GPL] into the same process so the
r
ral to use it in other programs. The normal response
would be to convince upstream to licence appropriately for linking
against an Apache licence and an OpenSSL licence.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tions it counts under the (already dubious) GPL linkage
clause, but I think it would be a stretch.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat Jan 03 09:22, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange
> > > interactions with other code (library lin
be against the law anyway?)
>
> "16. The Proceedings must not be reproduced for overtly political
> purposes."
>
> (Really problematic)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
c.
Matt
P.S. if you don't upload it to Debian proper, consider contacting the
debian-multimedia guys.
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
onable conservative stance, if a bit schitzophrenic
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ibuting a .jar that
> has sources?
A PDF with sources which we can't turn into the PDF is also an issue.
(i.e. shipping a frame-maker file and a PDF is not, AIUI, OK)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ve work, so you have to comply with the
licences of your source material, many of which are GPL, which means you
would have to use the GPL as well.
HTH, IANAL, etc
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
then it would be
reasonable to distribute _with the preferred form of modification of
that derivative work_, which is your new, translated, TeX file.
HTH,
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
with the PS documentation file.
In which case it may be worth mentioning to them that they are likely
failing to meet the terms of the GPL as well.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ing else that's been
invented in the last 30 years? Most certainly not. Take a leaf out of
the kernel folks book. Don't worry about patents until someone actually
starts enforcing them (CF fat32) and then reimplement the feature to
work around it.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
* OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
* OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
*
*/
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
te somewhere inside the
> CDK documentation "Originally under the Artistic License 2.0 and
> relicensed under clause 4(c)(ii) to the LGPL 2.1"?
A simple statement from the copyright holder(s) (all of them) should
suffice.
> Can an LGPL package include an XML schema definition which may not be
> changed but which is required in order to use part of the LGPL API?
regardless of this (and I think the schema can be data for these
purposes, so yes), it can't go in Debian main.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
#x27;s ample example of rename clauses. Iceweasel is a
high-profile example. DFSG4 says:
"... The license may require derived works to carry a different name
or version number from the original software."
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ough all their code to check that there are no
> other outstanding licensing details like that.
I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon Mar 22 14:24, David Given wrote:
> > Absent any modifications, all of Debian (that is, the ‘main’ archive
> > section) is free to redistribute verbatim in any form. Many other
> > actions are also permitted; see the specific license texts for details.
>
> I've read that; unfortunately, it j
d by the application is covered: otherwise you couldn't choose the
licence
of documents you created with a GPL word processor. More importantly, however,
the GPL contains a clause permitting 'mere aggregation'.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri Sep 03 14:04, Paul Wise wrote:
> BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris?
>
> http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/
>
How would the licence interactions work here, with a CDDL kernel and a GPL
libc/userland? Does the fact that it's specifically the kernel satisfy the
39 matches
Mail list logo
