Re: Void license problem
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:54:33 +0100
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that's an extraordinarily noisy website. A link to the actual
licenses might motivate me more, but generally speaking, if they just
say public domain without any additional disclaimers or riders, that
should be fine.
Thank you for the answer.
I was investigating all the source code of the software i'm packageing
and isn't necessary set libtom{crypto|math} as build-deps or runtime
deps because the upstream author only included a few lines (some crypto
functions he needed) from this libs on his source code and licensed all
with GPL, isn't necessary create packages for each library.
I'm asking the Upstrean Author for permissions from Tom St Denis
(original author of libtom) to license parts of his library included in
his software with GPL license.
Best regards,
--
Nacho Barrientos Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG: 0xE103FC4D - http://criptonita.com/~nacho
(Signed/Encrypted Email Preferred)
pgpRfAUDTVaPU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Void license problem
This one time, at band camp, Nacho Barrientos Arias said: Hey! I need to package some libraries that are dependency of a package i'm working on. The license files of this libs says that this software is public domain, i need the definition of 'public domain' from upstream author or is it DFSG compliant? This libs can be downloaded here: http://libtomcrypt.com/ Well, that's an extraordinarily noisy website. A link to the actual licenses might motivate me more, but generally speaking, if they just say public domain without any additional disclaimers or riders, that should be fine. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
