unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

Dear Debian Legal Team, I'm adopting src:muse-el, and the old d/copyright file does not state which license the old debian/* uses. I used "comm" to see what remained after transitioning the package to use dh-elpa, current debhelper and compat, et al, and only the contributions of Michael Olson

File is BCP 78 or Simplified BSD? Lintian says BCP 78

Dear Debian Legal Team, I am wondering if Lintian correctly detected a file's copyright as BCP 78, or if it's a false alarm. I want to believe that it's a false alarm, but have submitted a patch to make the package dfsg-free in case it is not a false positive (Bug #868258). The file in question

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

Dear Debian Legal Team, Thank you very much for your help. I've read each email in this thread with care, and at last can consider this issue closed. On 9 June 2017 at 02:27, Anthony DeRobertis <anth...@derobert.net> wrote: > On 06/08/2017 06:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> &

advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Dear Debian Legal, An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a proprietary piece of software. Both the free and the proprietary software are developed in the U.S.A. The upstream has confirmed that the name is not a registered trademark in the U.S.A, but the proprietary

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

Hi Ben, On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:24:11AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I pushed updates here: > > > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/tree/debian/COPYING.emails > > That's a

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Hi Paul, On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:19:16AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > Do you think it's ok to internally provide backwards compatibility? > > eg, for a library, newname provides/fulfils oldname, for a long

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

Hi Ian, On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:27:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves writes ("advice for free software package named almost > identically to non-free software"): > > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > > propriet

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:52:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > > proprietary piece of software. > > I think it would be best to pro-actively

Re: advice for free software package named almost identically to non-free software

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:52:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a > > proprietary piece of software. > > I think it would be best to pro-actively

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:54:57PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Ian Jackson writes: > > > Do you agree that my mail exchange as found in the sympathy package is > > a good example of how to ask these questions, and how to record the > > answers ? > > Ian Jackson

Re: File is BCP 78 or Simplified BSD? Lintian says BCP 78

Hi Ian, Thank you for the quick reply, and sorry for the delay. I have a bit of free time today, but after that I (again) won't have much time for Debian work for the next two weeks. On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:12:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves writes ("File i

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

Hi Ian, Francesco, John, and everyone else reading this, On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:28:43AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote: > On 12/10/2017 06:12 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > In particular I'm concerned about lines like this from > > d/copyright: > > > > "p

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

Dear Debian Legal Team, I've CCed you for my reply to this bug, because I don't have the experience to be able to tell if Debian implicitly relicensed Audacious as GPL-3 from 2012-2016, how potentially falling out of BSD-2-clause license compliance might have affected this, and also how this

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

Hi Francesco, John, and everybody else reading this, On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:39:41 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: [...] > Failing to retain the license text in the package distribution is in > fact lack of compliance w

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:36:49AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > Both BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause allow relicensing as GPL, thus so > > long as the licensing terms are complied with correctly BSD code can > > perpetually and unidirectiona

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:12:39 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > [...] > > GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD > [...] > > A nitpick: the 2-clause BSD license is not GPL-incompatible (it's > indeed compatibl

Re: Does Debian itself have a license?

Hi Hong, On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 12:32:28PM -0700, Hong Xu wrote: > On 09/08/2018 09:51 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > Hong Xu writes: > > > >> I understand that each piece of software has its own license in Debian > >> and they can be easily looked up. However, I have trouble finding the > >>

Re: Does Debian itself have a license?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:12:47AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Hong Xu writes: > > > For example, /usr/share/doc/bash/copyright reads "Copyright (C) > > 1987-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc." Although the author of the > > packaging "Matthias Klose " is mentioned, there is no > > license

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

Update Sorry for my deplorable memory and lack of organisation wrt this bug; I committed some initial work and then forgot about it. Given my work schedule for Oct and Nov it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent the scheduled autoremoval. If someone else would like to fix it asap please

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

Hi Francesco, On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:39:28 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > [...] > > This is one of the reasons the FSF demands copyright > > assignment for their projects...they want to be able to relic

Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:50:56PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote: > >I was going to have a look but got distracted by writing kernel drivers >â** fascinating stuff :D >I will try and spend some time this week on this. If not, I'll post an >update here. Thank you Andrej! Very much

Re: Bug#903092: [RSVP] php-elisp: permission to relicense contributions required from past contributors

Hi Francesco, Thank you for your reply, and sorry for the delay in my own. Reply follows inline. On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 10:18:39AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:46:07 -0700 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > Dear Ola, Pontus, and Debian Legal team

Re: Bug#903092: [RSVP] php-elisp: permission to relicense contributions required from past contributors

Hi Giacomo! Thank you for your reply, and sorry for the delay in my own. On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 10:54:32AM +, Giacomo wrote: > I'm one of the old contributors: years ago I did the port from PHP4 to PHP5. > Wow, thank you for that work upstream :-) > To be honest I can't recall if my

Re: do I need to mention tiny change in copyright file

Hi Joël, On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:38:56PM +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote: > Hi, > > Do I need to mention the person submitted 3 patches in > debian/copyright file, containing a total of 5 lines changed in my > package? > > I have attached the patches. Upstream did a notice in ChangeLog and >

Re: Bug#903092: [RSVP] php-elisp: permission to relicense contributions required from past contributors

. At this point I suspect it does, but I am erring on the side of caution. On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:46:27PM +0200, pon...@ullgren.com wrote: >This is acceptable by me. >// Pontus > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:01:30PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >

Re: Commercial Use and Source Code

Hi Aron, On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 01:56:14PM -0400, Aron Reman wrote: >Hi, >Thank you for the response. I just wanted some clarification. Under the >Debian license, I do not have to release source code as long as I am >writing my source code on top of the existing system correct?

Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work

Hi, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > >> it would still not be DFSG-free, because it >> fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer >> Consulting would accept email, it w

Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work

Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> Adrian Bunk writes: >> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >>... >> >> * Neither name of the company nor the na

Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work

Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >>... >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be used >> to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific >&g

do SPDX declaration fulfill §17 of GPL?

Hi, I found a problematic change in one of my packages: https://github.com/KDE/kio-gdrive/commit/6321fda6294e3d021b7a2758c1200aa42debb021 This looks like a regression of license validity to me, because the fulfillment of §17 of the GPL was removed from the affected files, and I suspect that

RFC about DFSG-freeness of PHP license [Re: Bug#903999: ITP: php-doc -- Documentation for PHP]

Hi Athos, Thank you for working on this RFP, and for doing all the work involved with reintroduction the package. I'm CCing the debian-legal team who I hope will be able to help with the stylesheet question and related issues; I've given it my best-effort, but would appreciate someone else's

Re: Expat license and "free for academic users"

Francesco Poli writes: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote: >> >> [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed] >> >> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has >> the following in its README.md: >> >> "EvoEF2 is free to academic users." >>