Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 03:47:05PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > As some of you might know some time ago I created a web page for > listing information about licenses discussed by debian-legal > at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ > > Comments, objections? Maybe it is sufficient to refer to this page more often and to explicitly request updates on various lists and in various threads. I remember that you announced the page but never visited it before :-(( I'm sure it is quite useful. Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How does the license of an M4 autoconf macro affect a software license?
Hi, the game Battle of Wesnoth contained in Debian is licensed under GPL v2+. Now a dependence on the Boost libraries (www.boost.org) was added and the configure script missed a test for it. So I integrated (see https://gna.org/bugs/?10419) the file boost.m4 from http://repo.or.cz/w/boost.m4.git which is licensed under GPL v3+ into the build system (I these macros from configure.ac). Now the question: Could the different license versions cause problems? Can Wesnoth still be shipped as GPL v2+ or not? I would also like to know the following (as the author is willing to relicense boost.m4 if necessary to the Boost license): If a possible non-free software which uses Boost would start using boost.m4 in their build environment, is it necessary to relicense the whole software under GPL v3+? I searched the web for quite some time and couldn't find an explicit answer except: According to GPL v2 the build system belongs to the source code of software but is the integration and usage of M4 macros a modified work? Since I mentioned that some autoconf macros contain a GPL exception I have doubts about compatibility and Eric S. Raymond asked me to resolve it so please help ... Thanks, Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sensibility and caveats of Debconf translations of licenses
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > I have two questions: > a) Are there any precedents about translating licenseing texts >(especially for non-DFSG-licenses?). In this case the license is >rather straight forward, but generally speaking a user might not >(fully) understand the english original (i.e. Debconf is just >made to ask the user in his own language for the most important >parts of the configuration).[1] > > b) Should I/Do I have to ammend the translation to state that >a) The legal relevance is unclear (IANAL, but there are > restrictions in Germany what can be within a contract) and >b) The translation is only inofficial, hence in doubt the english > version is valid only - but this presents the (technical) > problem that the user has no (easy) possibility to switch the > language in situ. The only option would be to abort and restart > with LANG=C or similar. You could append the English text also to your translation or refer to a URL containing the English text ... Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licenses links broken
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Pau Ruŀlan Ferragut wrote: > Most of the links in http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ are broken, such as > the FAQ itself. Please have a look at them. Most? OK, a few are indeed broken and I suggest to use the following URLs instead. Since this is license stuff it would be nice if it could be checked (just in case a license changed (such as X's one and the old link referred to a older version than my new proposal, ...). MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License Python Software Foundation License: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5.2/license/ W3C Software Notice and License: times out ... http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq returns a Forbidden. Can someone check whether this site still exists (on the people.debian.org server)? http://tango.isti.cnr.it/docs/dfsg-faq.html is a (newer or older?) draft of it. There are also many non-free licenses mentioned without a link. Why? Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licenses links broken
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04:17PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:42:16 +0200 Jens Seidel wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Pau Ruŀlan Ferragut wrote: > > > Most of the links in http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ are broken, > > > such as > > > the FAQ itself. Please have a look at them. > > > > Most? > > > > OK, a few are indeed broken and I suggest to use the following URLs > > instead. Since this is license stuff it would be nice if it could be > > checked (just in case a license changed (such as X's one and the old > > link referred to a older version than my new proposal, ...). > > > > MIT/X11-style licenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > > Actually, the MIT_License wikipedia page currently includes the > Expat/MIT license, not the X11/MIT license. I would suggest to use the > following link: > > Expat/MIT license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt OK, did so. Linking to Wikipedia would ensure that the link is always up to date and this page contains also further info. But Ok I changed it as suggested by you (inclusive s,X11/MIT,Expat/MIT,). > The so-called X11/MIT license uses a slightly different wording and > also includes a clause forbidding unauthorized use of names in > advertising. > Unfortunately, I cannot find a currently valid URL for the X11/MIT > license. The text is quoted in one of my old bug reports: > http://bugs.debian.org/284340 > If anyone finds a valid URL for the X11/MIT, I would be very interested > to know... > Please note that http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#3 > is close, but not equal to the license I used to know as the X11 license The Python link is now fixed as well. Thanks, Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
