Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: - the 3-clause BSD license is considered free - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising clause in its exact wording Does OpenSSL have to go to non-free, or do I miss anything? It's not GPL-compatible. This is not the same as non-free. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Frontier Artistic License
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:36:12PM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed script, suite, or file stating how and when you changed that script, suite, or file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) Use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization, or retain the modified Package solely for personal use. b) Place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as ftp.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package. c) Rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate manual page (or equivalent) for each non-standard executable that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version. d) Make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder. Section 3 is the one that concerns me a little but it seems that we allow the Artistic License so I wanted to be sure. Section 3 allows you to modify without making your changes publically available, or modify and make your changes freely available. I don't think there's an issue there. -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 07:40:42PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080823 14:31]: What was proposed was that every single user of the software would be required to host, on their own server and at their own expense, or even over the same net access through which remote access to the software is provided, a copy of the source code for every piece of AGPLv3 licensed software they wanted to use. What I am continually having to re-iterate in this thread is that this only applies to those who are running modified copies of code which is not already available online, that a free VCS solution is suitable, and it you're only required to share the source code with people you've already opted to allow remote access to your modified version. So everything is fine until someone wants to modify the software. But if they do, you say they are no longer allowed to run it without fullfilling some restrictions. I fail to see how anyone can consider that free. How is that different to the GPL? The GPL requires anybody who distributes the software to fulfill some restrictions (i.e., provide source). The only difference I can see is that under the AGPL, usage always implies distribution, which I don't think is completely unreasonable for webapps and similar. -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 pgpp0MHkUu2MQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Do web applications disable GPL obligations?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:52:31PM -0700, M. Tyler wrote: Måns Rullgård-3 writes: Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA. BTW, is there a reason why many of the list contributions end with these acronyms? Do they have any legal significance or do they only show that you don't want to be misunderstood to tell the final truth? IANAL: I am not a lawyer. TINLA: This is not legal advice. In some countries, it's illegal for someone who isn't a qualified lawyer to pass themself off as one, or to give legal advice. This is, as far as I know, the case in the UK, and probably the USA also. Also, if someone who *is* a qualified lawyer gives legal advice, that can be construed as creating attorney-client privilege, and also opens the lawyer up to legal action if the advice turns out to be bad. -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 Take an eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind. -- Mahatma Gandhi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 02:05:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the above interpretation is mistaken. See the recent http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. It says, regarding both GPL version 2 and version 3: Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so on. Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct! The GPL does require you to provide everything that is needed but it does _not_ require to put more than the work under GPL. I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion, as the quoted section states quite the opposite - you need to include the compilation scripts, whether or not you consider them to be part of the work. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ pgpK4aSKJFFAQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
