Re: Joke non-free clauses?
Hi, recently I try to package deadbeef [1] into Debian and Ubuntu, but it includes the libdumb (0.9.2). It seems that the libdumb has a license issue which blocked the upload. We need to clear the license issue, and make sure that everyone agree. [1] http://deadbeef.sourceforge.net/ an audio player , src : git://github.com/dreamerc/deadbeef-debian.git regards, -- Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC) dreamerwolf...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/u2h1c35ace01004080832nc23fb08fmde62df015dcd7...@mail.gmail.com
Does this license meet DSFG?
Hello! I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before getting rejected on the NEW queue :-) Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements, but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it. This license grants you the right to use, modify, and redistribute XX (the software). In this license, the term GPL designates one or more official, numbered versions of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. It specifically excludes drafts or working verions of licenses, or licenses with similar or identical names that are published by entities other than the Free Software Foundation. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under any one of the following conditions (at your option): 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and distributed here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any version of the GPL greater than 3. 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) that places additional restrictions on advertising and labeling of the software, provided that all of the following conditions are met: a. The software has incorporated (been combined with or linked to) the OpenSSL library, and b. The license of the incoporated OpenSSL library prevents the resulting work from being distributed under each of conditions 1-3 of this license, and c. The restrictions on advertising and labeling are no more restrictive than those under which OpenSSL 1.0.0 was distributed in its original March 2010 release, and d. All recipients of the software retain the ability to distribute the software under any subset they wish of conditions 1-3 of this license provided they remove the incoporated OpenSSL library. Thanks in advance, Dererk -- BOFH excuse #402: Secretary sent chain letter to all 5000 employees. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Joke non-free clauses?
Hi, You mention DUMB v0.9.2, whereas the latest version is 0.9.3. Is this intentional on the part of the 'deadbeef' package? When DUMB v0.9.2 was the latest version and the problem was first brought to my attention, I put a notice on the website stating that Point 4 of the licence was renounced. For DUMB v0.9.3, I removed the notice, because the new licence had further points in it, one of which was meant to prevent the licence from being non-free. It turns out I didn't do a very good job of being legally clear! There is now a notice on the website about a further clause in DUMB v0.9.3 which I believe is legally clear but still hopefully some fun. I was informed that it was sufficient to make DUMB suitable for inclusion in the free repository. Could you clarify: is there a problem with DUMB v0.9.3, or is it that DUMB v0.9.2 is non-free and the notice resolving the situation for 0.9.2 no longer remains? Thanks, Ben :) On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:32:36 +0800 Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC) dreamerwolf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, recently I try to package deadbeef [1] into Debian and Ubuntu, but it includes the libdumb (0.9.2). It seems that the libdumb has a license issue which blocked the upload. We need to clear the license issue, and make sure that everyone agree. [1] http://deadbeef.sourceforge.net/ an audio player , src : git://github.com/dreamerc/deadbeef-debian.git regards, -- Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC) dreamerwolf...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100408232517.2f1d8...@kurumi
Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
Le Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:05:39PM -0300, Dererk a écrit : I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before getting rejected on the NEW queue :-) Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements, but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it. Hello Derek, in summary, the work can be distributed under the GPLv2 or superior, or under the GPLv3 or superior with an exemption that lifts the incompatibility with the OpenSSL license (but that can not be used to accept new incompatible clauses that would be added after March 2010). This exemption can be removed, provided of course that the program is not linked anymore with OpenSSL. I do not see either something that would contradict the DFSG. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100409003426.ga28...@kunpuu.plessy.org