On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 17:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Thanks for the comments everyone. I'll get this sorted asap and send an
ITP in the next week or two.
Well, it took longer than expected, but its done :) Together with the
original author (Manfred Winterhoff) and the NetBSD maintainer (Ben
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 00:31 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I hope some volunteers to install it and check, so that a serious bug
can be filed against kpovmodeler, if necessary...
Since I used to play with povray before becoming involved with debian.
I've just installed kpovmodeler 3.5.0-3, and
On 9/6/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to search for this licensewise? Thanks.
S:R)
Google seems to index packages.debian.org, so perhaps something like:
site:packages.debian.org inurl:copyright CC-3.0-BY
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To
On 11/1/07, STIX Fonts Project Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The STIX Fonts project group is pleased to announce the availability of the
STIX Fonts in beta test version. You are being notified of this milestone
because you requested that we contact you when the files were available for
On 11/6/07, travel kid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't know where to start so figured would start
from here. I was wondering what the US laws where in
shipping pre-installed debian servers to offices of
the same company outside US, to Europe mainly.
An explanation of why Debian doesn't
Hi all,
The final STIX fonts licence is available (quoted below too):
http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html
Here are some of the comments they got on it:
http://www.stixfonts.org/feedback-license.html
Here are some of the more general comments:
On Nov 18, 2007 3:18 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the license text does not seem to be much changed.
There are licence differences to the one I posted before, but that was
just because they made a mistake in which version of the licence to
post on the site.
I don't think
On Dec 2, 2007 2:36 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is the contact address?
STIX Fonts Project Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I failed to find any e-mail address on the website[1].
http://www.stixfonts.org/Readme.txt
http://bugs.debian.org/449205
--
bye,
pabs
On Jan 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Mauro Lizaur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So should the ttf-breip font keep in main or should be moved to non-free?
Sorry for my bad english, i hope you understand what i am asking here
Gentium[1] and other SIL OFL licenced fonts have been accepted into
Debian main, so
On Jan 15, 2008 7:13 PM, Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, Mauro, can you please make sure you also ship in your package the
upstream font source and documentation available on
http://stalefries.googlepages.com/fontsbreip
I'd like to add that only the font source should be
Sounds like you want the GNU AGPL instead of the GNU GPL:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
Some consider this to be a free software license, others do not.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Hi all,
I'm hoping OpenJDK will be ready for lenny, and today I noticed that
Sun are calling for comments on a revised draft of their trademark
license for OpenJDK:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2008-March/001115.html
I would suggest that people with comments direct them to the
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm hoping OpenJDK will be ready for lenny, and today I noticed that
Sun are calling for comments on a revised draft of their trademark
license for OpenJDK:
Mark, I wasn't able to find the FAQ, but I'd like it to answer
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Another question: nikto has been removed but is still present in
stable. It contains the same non-free data. Since the package has been
orphaned, who should I contact about this? ftp-master?
I'd say nikto is
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the zlib license (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html)
with an extra clause forbidding some kind of commercial usage
(Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in
original or modified
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is a similar clause to the one in the Open Font Library. Fonts
using the OFL have been accepted into Debian, so presumably the
ftpmasters would accept this licence.
s/Library/Licence
--
bye,
pabs
http
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* developing an editor for the game data format would be _really_
useful and appreciated (ScummVM developers are probably the most
qualified people to do that, since their interpreter is at least
capable of _reading_
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Jens Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
returns a Forbidden. Can someone check whether this site still exists
(on the people.debian.org server)?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls ~bap/public_html/ -l | grep dfsg
-rw--- 1 bap
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Faidon Liambotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And much more importantly, a similar clause (albeit only for the reserved
font name) is present in the Open Font License, under which most of the
free fonts are and which is accepted in Debian main.
The OFL is a bit
SPI counsel have looked at the issue of game thumbnails. I've attached
their recent mail on this issue. They conclude that it is best to
distribute each thumbnail under the same license as the original game.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
---BeginMessage---
Paul,
The
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you instead please give us the *text* of their response? That
would make it much more accessible to followers in this discusion.
Minimally reformatted version below:
Draft of August 8, 2008
I forget which package, but there is software in Debian (main,
accepted by ftp-masters) written by a bonobo. Of course there has been
a thread about this on debian-legal, please search the archives and
read it.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Philipp Hübner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I searched the archives, but couldn't find anything.
Some ideas for keywords or thread names I could use?
I realise now it was not on debian-legal but on planet.d.o and it was
about this package exactly:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For works that are not a script, or that have copyright holders
who are not an author, would this be a further improvement:
The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
permission to any party who may
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I've read the FAQ (posted earlier in this thread) correctly, if
Debian uses a centralized location for license files, which
/usr/share/doc/packagename/copyright is, then Debian should be able to
put the
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Past discussions in this forum have also revealed that copyright is
now so insidious that divesting oneself of copyright seems to be
almost impossible to perform in many jurisdictions, even with
statements like the above.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with authors not being able to give up
their moral rights. Why do you think this needs fixing?
Some people clearly want to be able to. The OP for example.
--
bye,
pabs
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how we should consider the fact they did not remove nor
rephrase this obnoxious clause. Back in the FDL discussions, it was
commonly accepted that this was a honest mistake and that it was going
to be fixed in
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:55 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stet is still broken and the Google Summer of Code work is MIA, so
where should comments be sent?
Commenting works for me and others:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's bad news as well, since only the open use logo without the
Debian text has been dealt with.
See my unanswered questions to the previous DPL [4]
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00056.html
You
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:13 AM, KS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Just out of curiosity I would appreciate, if could send me / point
me to a picture of the quilt in the exhibition :)
I don't have snapshot of the final version so I just used the ones
which my friend sent me a month or so ago.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:20 PM, David Bremner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It turns out there is already AGPL software [0] in sid/main as
Miriam Ruiz points out [1] in a blog entry.
Does that mean that the question of DFSG freeness of the AGPL of is settled,
at least for the moment?
It means
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must packages in main derive the contents of binary packages from the
sources shipped in the source package, or can they simply copy
pre-generated, not directly editable files which have been derived
using some other
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
libjs-jquery prompted this question. The files in dist/ have been
processed and are not source-equivalent, and are directly copied into
the binary package.
Quite a common occurrence with JavaScript stuff unfortunately.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Build the packed javascript in debian/rules using the yahoo compressor
(or another).
Looks like this is planned already:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495178#10
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org
This whole topic is very debatable (I suggest not doing that though,
Debian produces enough long threads).
I would suggest doing what you think is best and getting that uploaded
to Debian. If the ftp-masters reject that, you can improve it and
re-upload until they accept it.
--
bye,
pabs
Personally I think the Debian website is the wrong place to archive
specific versions of licences for reference. Wikipedia, or maybe the
Debian list archives would be more appropriate.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
I guess the only alternative would be to create license-archive.org,
or perhaps a section on the Debian or FreeDesktop wiki sites?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Antonio Radici anto...@dyne.org wrote:
I'm adopting libpam-pwfile and while checking the licenses in the source
package I've found that part of it is a derivative work of this code:
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/gpw.html
s/adopting/packaging/ ? libpam-pwfile
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
The CC public domain dedication (one of the few things Creative Commons
got right, IMHO), is much more verbose:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
There is also CC0, which is intended as a more
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Maximilian Gaß wrote:
with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
Debian?
Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I'd
expect it would
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Here is a copy/paste of the the legal code for CC0 1.0 Universal for
-legal regulars to dissect:
I should also point out the human-readable summary:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
CC0 1.0 Universal
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.
#authornamemakes this work avilable under CC0
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
The CC folks prefer that you use this actually:
To
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Cedric Fachinetti c.fachine...@free.fr wrote:
What does the debian-legal community think?
License NIH is fun!
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org wrote:
This font's license is not one of the usual licenses we know about and
the text is written as is:
...
What is the debian-legal experts opinion on this license?
I'm no expert, but there doesn't appear to be any
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Christian Perrier wrote:
Do others see any other needs for that license to be considered
free?
It depends on upstream's interpretation of the clause 1 and 2.
Possible interpretations I can think of:
1.
1.1. Every user must perform a ceremony to celebrate
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Mathieu Blondel math...@mblondel.org wrote:
I mentioned Voxforge in my previous email. Their goal is to use their
free spech data to train models with HTK and use the models with
Julius. You can get the source code of HTK after registration on their
website
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Rafael Laboissiere raf...@debian.org wrote:
I have filed an ITP for octave-quartenion [1], a package from the
Octave-Forge Project [2]. Its latest released tarball [3] contains a
documentation file doc/quartenion [4] in PostScript format for which no
source
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Robert Wohlrab robert.wohl...@gmx.de wrote:
currently some people started to create a package for mupen64plus. There is a
complex license situation, but most files are under a free, osi-approved
license. Only the directory glN64 has files without any license
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Robert Wohlrab robert.wohl...@gmx.de wrote:
It has no license headers, it is not mentioned in the LICENSE file and
http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=45564 seems to indicate that
mupen64plus developers don't know the license situation either.
Summary:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Daniel Richard G.sk...@iskunk.org wrote:
(The intent here is potential commercial use of the mark, e.g. Iceweasel
plushies.)
I imagine it is too late for this year, but please bring some to DebConf10 :)
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Antonio Radici anto...@dyne.org wrote:
the following is a license of a file called tools/jsmin.py included in
the version of libv8 distributed by Google, the notice that the
software shall be used for Good, not Evil tells me that this is a
non-free license,
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the
following license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, are permitted provided that the
following
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com writes:
The license is as follows:
You may make copies of SPIM for your own use and modify those copies.
All copies of SPIM must retain my name and copyright notice.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I think it's unlikely that an alert ftpmaster would today allow it into
the archive in such a state, and I'm alerting the maintainer of this.
In case you missed it, spim has been removed from Debian for a long
time
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:53 AM, mha...@mhatta.org wrote:
Also, I know some Debian packages currently contain or use their own
copy of Cmaps. For example, poppler uses poppler-data, which contains
Cmaps. IIRC xpdf-* and dvipdfmx have some Cmaps, too. I think we
should begin a coordinated
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Jose Antonio Quevedo
joseantonio.quev...@gmail.com wrote:
What can you tell me about it?
One thing of note is that there is no GPL exception for OpenSSL.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Jose Antonio Quevedo
joseantonio.quev...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry,
The last license looks like not being the complete license.
Attached is the real and complete license, the LICENSE file included in
source code.
This is exactly the same license as the website.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Jose Antonio Quevedo
joseantonio.quev...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, it will never be included in main repository with this source code, but,
does it mean debian will not distribute this package in any way? will it not
even be included in contrib or non-free
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jose Antonio Quevedo
joseantonio.quev...@gmail.com wrote:
About repositories:
Where will the package be placed in each one of that possibilities?
For the first two, probably main.
About the third possibility:
how the package have to be done to be accepted by
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Jose Antonio Quevedo
joseantonio.quev...@gmail.com wrote:
isn't it enough? how should be the text that this license needs to show to
satisfy the first possibility?
If you had read the links I provided you would see that it is not
enough and what upstream needs
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Eugen Dedu
eugen.d...@pu-pm.univ-fcomte.fr wrote:
snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/GSM0610$ more COPYRIGHT
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann,
Technische Universitaet Berlin
Any use of this software is permitted
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Eugen Dedu
eugen.d...@pu-pm.univ-fcomte.fr wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Eugen Dedu
eugen.d...@pu-pm.univ-fcomte.fr wrote:
snoopy:~/softs/ekiga/opal-svn/plugins/audio/GSM0610$ more COPYRIGHT
Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Jim Larus la...@microsoft.com wrote:
OK, let's make this simple.
The Debian project has permission to distribute spim and xspim.
...
Is this sufficient?
Great, thanks!
Some permission to modify and distribute modified versions would be
useful in the case a
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
More than the trademark fair use problem, there is one of a license one:
Are these logo really free ? (keep in mind that for example, the Firefox
logo is not, whatever the trademark status is)
The initial mail in this
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
The pidgin-facebookchat icons seem free (GPLv3) though.
Well, that's what they claim, but what is the real status ? A wild guess
is that most icons that are present in packages have been picked from
the web sites (or
[CCing you because I presume you are not subscribed to debian-legal]
The fonts available in Debian are like any other fonts; you or
preferably your lawyer should read the license terms for the
individual font(s) you wish to use and decide if your intended use is
possible. The participants in
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
Earlier today Mozilla announced that we're launching a community process
to update, simplify, and modernize the MPL. You can find more
information about the process at http://mpl.mozilla.org/
Is there the perception
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Given d...@cowlark.com wrote:
I'd like to distribute a Debian root file system with my (open source)
projects. What are my legal obligations when doing so?
Can you give us some more info about what you are doing? Perhaps we
can come up with a better way
Firstly, the Debian Games team would very much welcome new games in
Debian and even better would be new people willing to help the team
with existing and new games in Debian.
Regarding licenses, even if the license doesn't require source code
distribution, Debian does, see DFSG #2. Some Debian
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Rudolf Polzer divver...@alientrap.org wrote:
BTW: is it DFSG and GPL compliant to compose music using CC-BY released
samples? CC-BY does not require anything about the license of derived works
(only CC-BY-SA does). And can't the source requirement of the GPL be
Since Debian servers (ftp-master mirrors) are located in the USA,
the license forbids it from being distributed by Debian:
http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=ries
In addition, like Fedora, Debian probably wouldn't distribute it
because of the patent risk.
berlios is probably technically in
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Wolfram Quester wo...@sigxcpu.org wrote:
In addition, like Fedora, Debian probably wouldn't distribute it
because of the patent risk.
Yes, but I still don't know which patent might be violated :-(
Probably one of these:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
In addition you could just keep the packaging in your SVN repo and
expect people to build the package manually.
It was pointed out that, depending on how you do it, this could be
considered distribution. Alioth (svn.d.o
Some points:
Jokes are great, but licenses are not the place to make them. Come to
DebConf and make them over conversation and $BEVERAGE instead.
License proliferation is bad, license standardisation/consolidation is good!
The DUMB license is extremely far from clear. License clarity is
I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
would like them to choose.
I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those aren't acceptable,
the SIL OFL is a DFSG-compatible compromise between font foundry
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
the openlayers package, which I'm reviewing for sponsorship (mentoree CCed),
has a couple of files with the following license:
...
While I agree this license fails to meet DFSG #6 (No Discrimination Against
Fields of
Hi all,
Some of you may have missed the release of the International Free and
Open Source Software Law Review (IFOSSLR) volume 2 no 1:
http://www.ifosslr.org/index.php/ifosslr/issue/view/3
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha a...@nexenta.org wrote:
* I would like to understand further the rational behind using the
distribution of libraries boundary at Debian project level, rather
than at a package/binary level, which seems a more natural fit for
delineation.
Simply
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
So long as the upload queue continues to reside in the US, this is true.
However, the current ftp team have made several proposals that seem to
disregard this aspect of the crypto-in-main solution; I would recommend that
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Stefan Ott ste...@ott.net wrote:
[3] http://www.eveonline.com/community/fs_agreement.asp
For reference, here is the full text of this agreement:
AGREEMENT FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE
For Fan and News Sites, Online Radio Stations and Chat Venues
Please read this
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Stefan Ott ste...@ott.net wrote:
[3] http://www.eveonline.com/community/fs_agreement.asp
For reference, here is the full text of this agreement:
AGREEMENT FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE
...
Upon
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Stefan Ott ste...@ott.net wrote:
Thanks for having a look at it. What about removing non-dfsg stuff
from upstream and fetching the data in postinst?
Sounds acceptable for contrib. What is this data anyway?
Oh noes, not *another* game! I barely manage to play
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Alessandro Rubini rub...@arcana.linux.it writes:
This message confirms the swirl is just one of the defaults:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00340.html
[which, may I say, was quite a naive
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Michael Shepard joelises...@gmail.com wrote:
I have contacted Panda Security about a GPL violation with their Rescue CD
technology. Previously it utilized ISOLINUX and an ncurses program. Recently
they switched to using Debian, so that they could provide a
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Frank A. Kingswood
fr...@kingswood-consulting.co.uk wrote:
Would it be beneficial if Debian joined OIN? The Open Invention Network
licenses patents to promote the Linux ecosystem.
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
It's not clear how much a membership would
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Innocent De Marchi
tangram.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you can not distribute this file.
That would appear to be correct. Please file an RC bug to track this issue.
The other two files contain no reference to author: Is it possible to
distribute in this
If you are the copyright holder on all the GPL-2+ files, then yes you
can change the license on them.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Harald Jenny
har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote:
the package was made by me so yes I could change the license of the whole
debian directory (minus the upstream patch) to BSD (I guess this is what you
referred to) but the main question for me is if this is the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Harald Jenny
har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote:
please CC me when replying, thanks.
Sorry, used to things being the other way
Thanks and could you also comment on Charles Plessy's last mail concerning the
BSD-like case?
I agree with Charles here.
--
bye,
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Harald Jenny
har...@a-little-linux-box.at wrote:
Ok so Petr's and my stanza should be marked BSD-like for correctness?
Yep.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso car...@debian.org wrote:
[2]
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/
Both of these files have lines like the following in their header:
%%Creator: dvipsk 5.521a Copyright 1986, 1993 Radical
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] 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
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Arand Nash ienor...@gmail.com wrote:
There are indeed several non-free items, ranging from CC-*-NC to All
Rights Reserved (a particular wincompat.h item, which is unnecessary,
but removing would mean modifying...)
Bummer.
The all content...open source
I personally wouldn't trust any single entity with which libraries can
be linked.
Since you mainly seem to care about OpenSSL why not just use exception
people generally use for that:
http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
Watch out for transitive GPL compliance issues though
AFAIK trademark law doesn't prevent a case like this, no-one can
confuse ice-cream/cookies with computer operating systems :)
As far as copyright goes, earlier discussions found that the swirl was
created using a standard brush in a popular proprietary art program
and could probably be reproduced
.doc files are usually binary so you won't be able to include it as a
patch. Instead I think you can use dpkg-source v3 and include a second
orig.tar.gz named orig-docsrc.tar.gz (check the dpkg-source manual
page for info on that). You can then use the upstream pristine
tarball.
The course of
I would say there is no clear license for that file and not even any
permission to redistribute it. I suggest you contact upstream to ask
them where they got that file from and what license they got from Sun
for it. If they can't give you any acceptable answer then ask them to
remove it and if
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:57:22PM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
or LaForge too may be good sources of information.
Who?
Harald Welte, founder of gpl-violations.org:
http://gpl-violations.org/about.html#whois
--
bye,
Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of
reinventing the legal wheel?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
1 - 100 of 338 matches
Mail list logo
