Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts, unless the presence of nuts is sufficiently obvious anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts, unless the presence of nuts is sufficiently obvious anyway. I've no clue about the UK, but in the US, the law actually deals with this problem. See Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act part w. We're so insanely offtopic now, though, that's it's almost comedic. Don Armstrong -- I was thinking seven figures, he said, but I would have taken a hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person. [All for a moldy bottle of tropicana.] -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
GFDL 1.1
Dear all Software in question: GnomeSword Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] I want to clarify that it still qualifies for the staying in Main. I've googled a lot about Debian and GFDL 1.2 but I'm a bit confused if the Debian resolution applies to GFDL 1.1 as well. It also puzzles me that GFDL 1.1 is not present in /usr/share/common-licenses/ And the proposed copyright format doesn't have GFDL-1.1 tag either (only v1.2) I'm member of the Crosswire packaging team and we are working on the new upsream release and hoping to get it into Jaunty and upload to Debian after Lenny (due to dependencies). Please help me to understand if this software with this documentation is DFSG compliant. [1] This is legal notice of the help file. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. You can find a copy of the GFDL at this link or in the file COPYING-DOCS distributed with this manual. This manual is part of a collection of GNOME manuals distributed under the GFDL. If you want to distribute this manual separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the license to the manual, as described in section 6 of the license. Many of the names used by companies to distinguish their products and services are claimed as trademarks. Where those names appear in any GNOME documentation, and the members of the GNOME Documentation Project are made aware of those trademarks, then the names are in capital letters or initial capital letters. DOCUMENT AND MODIFIED VERSIONS OF THE DOCUMENT ARE PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE WITH THE FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THAT: DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED ON AN AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES THAT THE DOCUMENT OR MODIFIED VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OF DEFECTS MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGING. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY, ACCURACY, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE DOCUMENT OR MODIFIED VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT IS WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY DOCUMENT OR MODIFIED VERSION PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, YOU (NOT THE INITIAL WRITER, AUTHOR OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR) ASSUME THE COST OF ANY NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY DOCUMENT OR MODIFIED VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER; AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER IN TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL THE AUTHOR, INITIAL WRITER, ANY CONTRIBUTOR, OR ANY DISTRIBUTOR OF THE DOCUMENT OR MODIFIED VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT, OR ANY SUPPLIER OF ANY OF SUCH PARTIES, BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER DAMAGES OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO USE OF THE DOCUMENT AND MODIFIED VERSIONS OF THE DOCUMENT, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. -- With best regards Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
dual-licensing question
I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual licensing. Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed software you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Some contend that when redistributing a project released under, for instance, BSD and LGPL licenses, one must abide by the terms of both licenses. Noah Slater asked me to bring this up with debian-legal as this is where he first learned of this latter viewpoint. Can someone more knowledgeable than myself speak to the actual implications of dual-licensing? Are there any restrictions placed on users redistributing software that was dual-licensed, or is dual-licensing specifically to address license compatibility (like GPLv2/ASF) and market segregation issues as wikipedia suggests?
Re: dual-licensing question
Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com writes: I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual licensing. There's no canonical definition of the term that I'm aware of. Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed software you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Yes; more precisely, a multi-license grant for a work means that the recipient can choose which of multiple license terms they received the work under. Having chosen, they are then bound by those license terms. Of course, the choice is often not explicitly made until a question arises of an action that could violate the terms of one of the licenses. This is consistent with the article and references at URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-licensing. Some contend that when redistributing a project released under, for instance, BSD and LGPL licenses, one must abide by the terms of both licenses. That's an unusual interpretation, and is not coherent in the frequent case where the licenses are incompatible — that is, where satisfying the combined set of license terms is impossible. In such cases, that interpretation would result in no effective license. The easiest example of this URL:http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ is perhaps one of the earliest well-known multi-licensed free software works: the Mozilla code base is licensed under the MPL and the GPL (and later the LGPL); the MPL is mutually incompatible with the other licenses. Are there any restrictions placed on users redistributing software that was dual-licensed, or is dual-licensing specifically to address license compatibility (like GPLv2/ASF) and market segregation issues as wikipedia suggests? I don't really understand what is being asked here; can you rephrase or expand? -- \ “My girlfriend has a queen sized bed; I have a court jester | `\ sized bed. It's red and green and has bells on it, and the ends | _o__) curl up.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1
Hi Dimitrij, On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM, dmitrij.led...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all Software in question: GnomeSword Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1] I want to clarify that it still qualifies for the staying in Main. I've googled a lot about Debian and GFDL 1.2 but I'm a bit confused if the Debian resolution applies to GFDL 1.1 as well. It also puzzles me that GFDL 1.1 is not present in /usr/share/common-licenses/ And the proposed copyright format doesn't have GFDL-1.1 tag either (only v1.2) I'm member of the Crosswire packaging team and we are working on the new upsream release and hoping to get it into Jaunty and upload to Debian after Lenny (due to dependencies). Please help me to understand if this software with this documentation is DFSG compliant. [1] This is legal notice of the help file. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. You can find a copy of the GFDL at this link or in the file COPYING-DOCS distributed with this manual. As you can see it says 'Version 1.1 or any later version', so it can be used under GFDL 1.2 as well. So that should be fine. Andrew -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.auhkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- the govt should be paying the tax - A friend of mine, 02/11/2008 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
