My CV
Hi! A former collegue of mine gave me your contact. He was very certain you would be very much interested to read my CV. After browsing your website and seeing what it is you guys do, I am also quite sure you will not be disappointed. I'm attaching my resume for you to read. I'm really looking forward to hearing back from you. Best regards. nelida silvester MyCV_1728.doc Description: MS-Word document
Re: Source files
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote: [...] > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore. I don't think so. > > People use open-source software for a variety of reasons. Some people > use it for security reasons. Auditing a program where all copies of the > C++ source no longer exist is exactly as difficult as auditing the > program where all copies of the C++ source are kept secret by the > maintainer. This may be true, but a program should *not* be declared non-free, just because it is insecure or difficult to audit. There are examples out there of DFSG-free programs which are not as well written as one would desire, but this does *not* mean those programs are non-free: of course, you may decide to avoid them like the plague, because you don't feel safe with them. That may be perfectly legitimate and reasonable, for some cases, but I would not call those programs non-free, just insecure and/or badly written... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp9YfGq2pbFf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"):
> > The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”:
> >
> > October 2002
> > - Released version 2.5.3
> > - Start moving mapge into the GPL...
>
> Can we tell who wrote that ? If the author of the questionable file is
> also the author of the changelog entry, and also added a copy of the
> relevant GPL, then that seems to me to be a clear statement of intent,
> which is what is necessary.
It's not a clear statement of intent, IMO; at best it is a “note to
self” for some *future* action, not yet achieved.
Even if that could be taken as a statement of intent, there are
conflicting statements of rather clearer intent: the existing, explicit
grants of more restrictive license conditions in the rest of the code
base.
Those intents are incompatible, and so there is no consistent license
that the Debian Project can assume. The conflict would need to be
resolved, preferably by the copyright holders removing the more
restrictive license statements, and making unambiguous license grants as
described in the GNU GPL's instructions.
> Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit
> statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a license can't be
> implied (or oral, for that matter).
Right, I meant that the Debian Project will need it in writing. Unless
you know better, I think the FTP masters are not willing to take an oral
statement as sufficient for distributing a work in the Debian system
world-wide under implied license that can't be verified later.
--
\ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a |
`\ man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” |
_o__) —John A. Hrastar |
Ben Finney
Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"):
> Eriberto Mota writes:
> > Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package
> > moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong?
>
> The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”:
>
> October 2002
> - Released version 2.5.3
> - Start moving mapge into the GPL...
Can we tell who wrote that ? If the author of the questionable file
is also the author of the changelog entry, and also added a copy of
the relevant GPL, then that seems to me to be a clear statement of
intent, which is what is necessary.
> This at least suggests the upstream developer at the time of that entry
> intended to explicitly change the license of the whole work to GNU
> General Public License.
>
> You could contact the upstream copyright holder, cite that changelog
> entry, and request they follow the instructions in GNU GPL v3 to
> effectively grant license for every part of the work to all recipients.
It would be fine to contact the relevant copyright holder.
> There needs to be an explicit written grant of license to the recipient,
> preferably in the work itself and not conflicting with any other
> notices (so those conflicting notices should be removed by the copyright
> holder who wrote them).
A copyright licence does not need to be in writing. (In the UK, at
least[1], and I would be surprised it if were different elsewhere.)
Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit
statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a license can't be
implied (or oral, for that matter).
Ian.
[1] I don't have a concrete reference for this, but it is clear at
least from the way that parts of the CDPA 1988 (for example
101A(1)(b)(i)) makes an explicit condition that the licence is in
writing.
