Hi,
there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due
to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB.
I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at
least two points:
• The inability to provide security support for AGPL software
(embargoed fixes)/
• The
Francesco Poli paranoici.org> writes:
> In the recent discussions, the main concerns were about the switch of a
Yes, I know, but the discussion was raised, so I wanted to make sure.
> > > So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main?
> For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion:
F
MJ Ray writes:
> Look, […]
My reply was specifically to this newsgroup,
a long-needed “request” to shut up, and explicitly *not*
soliciting *your* personal(!) opinion on those licences
either. I do not require the “added value”, and this
newsgroup is spammed enough by the likes of you two.
Besid
Paul Wise debian.org> writes:
> Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have
> displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind
Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not
holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing.
I’ve heard that France
MJ Ray phonecoop.coop> writes:
> Well, we "hear" things like that every time someone doesn't agree about
In this case I talked with other DDs on IRC.
> whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers
> seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote
> http://list
Clark C. Evans clarkevans.com> writes:
> > Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
> > list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
> > first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
>
> Not only that, but he r
Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
> So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into
> a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK.
Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the
input for the declarative dh* commands, pl
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
>This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are
>you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply
>to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that
Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowl
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> This license will be considered non-free in Debian.
ACK.
We have a thread about this on the OSI mailing list as well:
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/thread.html
starting at
http://projects.opensource.org/piperma
FWIW, the GMane thread view for the Debian bug on this is:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general/1099104
The bugreport is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728716
although I’d have put it into the ITP bug #721447 instead.
Elmar Stellnberger dixit:
>> What ab
Elmar Stellnberger dixit:
> Yes, they are and the license does currently not give any restriction about
> them
Except for forbidding them all, because patches must be distributed
separately, and distributing patched versions is forbidden.
> However it is not an OSD criterium
Independent on whet
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use
with software. (Also, Public Domai
On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2014-05-07 14:37 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> > Which you may want to do, in order to patch a security issue
> > you just found, locally, before filing it upstream.
> In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable tim
Hi everyone,
is there any example language for something like the following
around already, which I could reuse?
“This software Y is based on the software X, which was written
by the company Z; both X and Z are trademarks, but Y is not,
nor do we intend to use these trademarks (which is why we re
Pierre Joye wrote:
>As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
>valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes
*all* software using the PHP Licence non-free, because redistri
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>However, based on my own (possibly limited) understanding of the
>issue[1], this is case of a license (the PHP License) with sub-optimal
>wording that is misused by third parties, as it was initially designed
>for PHP itself, and is used for random software written in PHP.
Ángel González dixit:
> On 30/07/14 22:00, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> You could not distribute other derived products bearing the name of PHP
>> - but distributing PHP itself is fine, since it's not a "product derived
>> from PHP" but the actual PHP. If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
The actu
Ángel González dixit:
> Please remember that we are just talking about changes that Debian
> itself may want to perform (so it doesn't require a renaming which
> would be bad both for PHP and Debian users).
Right, but Debian probably (though it’s up to Ondřej Surý, the
maintainer; there is no cen
Hi,
I don’t think this has been covered yet, and, while I don’t have
immediate need for this, it awoke my curiosity.
From https://github.com/w3c/musicxml/issues/114 I see that the
latest version of the MusicXML standard is published under the
W3C FSA:
“The FSA Deed is available at:
https://www
Hi Ben,
>> Please keep me in Cc as I’m not subscribed to the list.
>
>Done, but if you want to continue this discussion please do subscribe so
>you don't miss messages.
meh. I can always check the web archives if someone misses this.
>> I don’t think this has been covered yet, and, while I don’t
Hi Ben
>So it's essential to know what is the specific *grant of license* from
>the copyright holder to recipients of the work.
I posted you the specific grant in my previous eMail,
did you not see it?
>>>Where is the text granting specific license in that work?
>>
>>
>>
>>So, as I said, pretty
Tom Callaway dixit:
>On 10/26/2018 11:32 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> So if it's not as free everywhere as it would be in Debian,
>> it's not free enough for Debian.
>
>It has never happened that I know of, but if there were a copyright
>license which was somehow okay only in Fedora (but not for an
22 matches
Mail list logo
