with Berkeley DB 5.3. It avoids all the pain of relicensing and the
inevitable licensing bugs that *will* show up. Not to mention that some
upstreams will be unamused at Oracle's shenanigans and won't want to
support BDB 6.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623
it
under the GPLv3 then you cannot link it with GPLv2 applications.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description
) are completely functional
without any firmware at all. Certain extra features, like TCP Segment
Offloading (TSO), are enabled by the firmware, but these features are
not required for basic functionality.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 +
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx wrote:
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.]
I don't need to be CC'd, thanks. M-F-T set accordingly.
On Thu, Apr 09
there.
- Thou shalt use and dispense freely without other restrictions.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b
questions about copyright and licenses to -legal,
where the regulars are well versed.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA
[For -legal people, the license is attached.]
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:01 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:20:14AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Official packages of Sun Java are now available from the non-free
section of Debian unstable, thanks to Sun
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:02 +0400, olive wrote:
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Everything is always possible. Even understanding how a program works
without source by disassembling it. If a free program depends on an
non-free library you can reimplement the free library.
ITYM the non-free library
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying.
I have removed the text that you quoted.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:35 +0400, olive wrote:
Once again if a license clearly fail the DFSG I will never advocate to
include it. But there are a lot of case where this is not the case and I
think people claim that the license violates the DFSG just because they
do no like it. There is no
On Thursday 24 November 2005 20:42, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's an example:
This program is licensed under the GPL...etcetc..
If your name is Jim then sections 3a and 3b do not apply.
is LESS restrictive than just the GPL. And it
it was that the authors may pick any license, so long as it's
DFSG-free. Do you see how it could be read that way?
Now, because they are the copyright holders, they could additionally license
it in some other way, too. But they must at least offer a DFSG-free license.
--
Brian M. Carlson
On Sunday 23 October 2005 08:38, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
[CC'ed debian-legal, they can probably give a more detailed and
informed analysis of the proposed license]
Done, please forware appropriate information as needed.
[snip license analysis]
RIPEMD-160 is
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you
want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR
to change the wording
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 20:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[argument of program vs. software]
If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing the point. The
point
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 19:23 +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know what do you guys think about the CDDL license
[1]. Does it meet with the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
First of all, please paste the entire license in the mail, so that if
people use things
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:45 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD software
isn't) and then without a license, because that gives us almost no
rights whatsoever
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 19:05 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote:
Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly
incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that
would still protect source-code redistribution on line. Basically, I'm
trying to write a
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 16:32 +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:50:36AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Sound free to me, since not the output of the library is required to
confirm to it, but the interface which generates the input for the
library.
/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses
and they consider it free if none of the part VI optional clauses are
excercised.
It is free under the same conditions (no optional clauses).
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
FIPS 180-1 is one)
are ineligible for copyright and are explicitly public domain.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
that we care about.
Active enforcement. Of course, if the patents are enforced, but are
allowed to be practiced under a DFSG-free license, then that's
different.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:47:45PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:14:30PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
non-US/non-free. crypto-in-main is crypto-in-*main*, not
crypto-in-non-free. That's part of the reason why we still have non-US.
This is due to some restrictions
trouble uploading, though;
klecker doesn't seem to be responding, at least to me.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR
HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES.
This disclaimer is much better. I believe the last one prohibited use in
nuclear facilities. This one merely states that it is NOT INTENDED FOR
USE IN such systems.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
on and remove the
patch so that the fonts look right.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
policies.
Sorry.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
are from the
Berkeley Unified School District, so I assume they're in Berkeley.
[0] http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/OS/zones/n.html
[1] http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/OS/zones/f.html
[2] http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/OS/zones/o.html
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
conflict or that the
distribution would conflict with other project policies, or, find
another section in policy that backs up your argument, fine; otherwise I
think this is NOTABUG (tm).
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
has a loaded gun. Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital
have included that in the [...].
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
seem to be ambiguous.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:22:39PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
Will you please clarify why??
I'm assuming you meant the copyright assignment statement, and
certainly
on an AS IS
BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express
or implied. See the License for the specific language governing
permissions and limitations under the License.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
BIG NOTICE: None of these licenses are official. They are all drafts.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:03:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
3
[0] See the archives for details.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free.
I have equivocated on its freeness
, which users should not have to do.
Fails DFSG 5.
IANAL. TINLA. IANADD.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
want an opinion from debian-legal.
At Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:28:48 +1000,
Anthony Towns wrote:
This bug should be closed.
OK, I've closed now.
Regards,
-- gotom
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple
[0], are available for use under DFSG-free
terms, and so may be placed in main, assuming the software implementing
them is also DFSG-free.
[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package.en.html
[0] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2144.txt
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED
just can
get a verdict after your discussion, but it's probably better if you
would Cc me on replies.
Thank you for including a proper Mail-Followup-To:. That's the best way
to get a proper response where you want it.
Please note that I am not a Debian Developer.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL
not be saying
anything and they might actually constitute the majority. I feel this an
unlikely possibility, though.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff
, as published by
the Free Software Foundation, version 2 only. That should take care of
the GFDL'd manpage that I submitted to fix a bug.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:45:39AM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 06:46:15PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Patented software does not have to be patent-encumbered (for example, we
have many programs and libraries in both main and non-US/main that use
CAST5 [0], which
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
The thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:16:30AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
-dtemNon-US/Main/em and emNon-US
for any reason belong in non-US/non-free. This
includes things that would be eligible for the crypto-in-main transition
were they free, but in fact are not. For example, IDEA code belongs
here.
One final nitpick: please properly capitalize non-US, non-free, and
main.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL
should be patched
out. File a bug.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
pgpTWGIF4xWHO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
of the license.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
pgp73AnYjahoo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
, for example, is the author of many early RFCs).
At least some early RFCs are free. You can see the bug on doc-rfc, which
*still* hasn't been closed, and is *still* in main.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
sandwiches or desks.
I will pay a cash reward to the first person who modifies apt to make it
possible to download a desk. ;-)
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200208/msg00385.html
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
RFC 1884 (December 1995)
RFC 2373 (July 1998)
RFC 3515 (August 2003)
^^^
Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
meant April 2003?
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL
is what I am most concerned about. Is it possible
to combine a work that is pure GPL and a work that is GPL with this
interpretation clause?
No need to Cc:, I'm subscribed.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
are unhappy.
Documentation *is* software, and therefore its licenses must follow the
DFSG; I thought we just decided that.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may
, it depends on what you mean by Debian. Debian cannot add
anything to the license; only the copyright holders can do so. If you
meant that this was a license only for Debian, that program would go in
non-free. DFSG 8 prohibits Debian-specific licenses. *But that aside*,
that license is free.
--
Brian M
not a DD, so I'm not going to
attempt a second.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
pgpMqE02KJJ1p.pgp
Description
that license material can be
immutable and still free. I have never seen debian-legal say that
advertisements and conversations with one's lawyer can be immutable and
still free. If you disagree, please show me a reference.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let
source. See #183860.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
pgp1MByC1oaVL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/copyright notice does not actually specify
the correct copyright statement. I suggest revising it thus:
This needs to be fixed anyway. The notice of copyright is important.
[0] http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/README
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think
PRODUCTS ARE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE
NOTICE SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
calculus.
Indeed, and nobody is suggesting that Richard's word be accepted as
gospel. I've written to the FSF's board about the FDL. Have you? On
the other hand, I notice that the FDL'd glibc-doc, at least, is still in
Debian main...
See bug 171659.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED
, IANADD.
[0] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all. --Douglas Adams
pgpgOLj184Mv8.pgp
by the replacement of it by the license you see now.
That discriminated against people not in the US. If I am not in the US
(which I am), then why should I have to abide by its laws?
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
or free?
This is free. It's the 4-clause BSD license. It is, however,
GPL-incompatible, so if you're linking GPL software with it, that's not
ok. I'm sure you know the drill. It's the same with OpenSSL.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do
of saying, If
you do not accept the fact there is no warranty, you cannot use the
program, as in the GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, or other licenses.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself
should remove the ECC code into
non-US/non-free.
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://decoy.wox.org/~bmc 0x560553E7
Fifty flippant frogs
Walked by on flippered feet
And with their slime they made the time
Unnaturally fleet.
pgpPalIeWuDiu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
67 matches
Mail list logo
