On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:43:27AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think that this captures why I, at least, am a bit uncomfortable with
your analysis. I haven't looked in any detail at the license, so I've
mostly stayed out of this discussion. But I do think that as a matter
of method, the
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:28:38PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:15:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, no, I didn't know what you meant, actually; I try to make as few
assumptions as possible, especially when it comes to the opinions
people who have only recently
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:41:31PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We have some concerns about this clause as well.
6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of
communication other than advertising
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:24:21AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:34:41AM -0700, Joe Moore wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
As I said in my mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
Technologies
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:07:18AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
little
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. For many cases, I'm
afraid, this would simply end up taking up most of our time following
the forms of producing summaries. My judgement was that there is no
real controversy on
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:08:56AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote:
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
[Just a reminder]
While we are here talking about the Mozilla Firefox case, don't forget
Debian distributes Mozilla and Mozilla Thunderbird as well, in the same
conditions.
Mike
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:54:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The legal documents, *as applied to a particular package*, must be
retained verbatim. But the law itself doesn't prevent me from taking
the GPL, modifying it, and using the modified version as a license for
my own package.
The
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:52:36PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v
SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the
protection of
Aiya!
LB Was general a common term in licenses then? It does seem that
LB general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman,
LB What about public? Were public licenses common?
Public is a common legal term indeed. It is used for agreements.
Public license is a particular case of public
Marek Habersack wrote:
Hey all,
I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to join
yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between, so I will
take the liberty to ask my question here.
You are right, your questions are better asked in debian-legal, with a
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to
join yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between,
so I will take the liberty to ask my question here.
In cases like these, please set Mail-Followup-To: so you'll be
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
projects
it distributes (like mozilla,
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Just a reminder]
While we are here talking about the Mozilla Firefox case, don't forget
Debian distributes Mozilla and Mozilla Thunderbird as well, in the
same conditions.
Mike
I would be interested to see a comparison of the Mozilla trademark
Hi list,
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
--
David Gourdelier
Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
projects
it
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently, the license (text below) is a
Hey all,
As in subject - http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
can the software be used/distributed in Debian?
thanks,
marek
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
David Gourdelier wrote:
Hi list,
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:39:59PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in
many projects it distributes (like mozilla, php, apache to name the
most prominent
David Gourdelier wrote:
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently, the license
So it means there is no legal problems for a cryptlib package ? My
wondering was more about this statement and the link with points 5 and 6 of the Debian social contract:
If you're unable to comply with the above license then the following,
alternate usage conditions apply:
Any
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that
is incompatible with the GPL to create a derivative work under the GPL
unless you yourself are the copyright
On 2004-03-04 18:58:55 + Humberto Massa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently, the license (text below) is a BSD-sans-advertising -like.
More
eyes, please:
Clauses 1 and 2 are identical to BSD. Clause 3 is entirely different.
3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by
On 2004-03-04 19:03:49 + David Gourdelier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're unable to comply with the above license then the following,
alternate usage conditions apply:
Irrelevant if the above license is free, isn't it?
OK, the thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the
Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not
compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. The license is a BSD one,
that's clear, but the terms of use and usage conditions seem to restrict the
Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's fine, but read what does the copyright say exactly:
Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License
Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even
more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL.
That
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:53:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that
is incompatible with the GPL to create a
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B,
with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A
being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class that descends from a class
defined in B), A being MPL and B being GPL?
If A
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:06:20PM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B,
with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A
being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class that
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
What makes it more serious this time, is the heading - which says
usage conditions - that's a pretty strong statement.
Yeah, but this is on a website, not the actual code. What matters are
the copyright statements on the code and the license that they
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...license for cryptlib...]
Except for proper names, this is identical to the license for
the libdb4.0 package, which is already in Debian main.
--
Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:58:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
David Gourdelier wrote:
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank
On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend
for (mostly-)non-program files?
Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (nearly
the same) or the GPL.
[ The 2-clause BSD is the one without the
On Mar 4, 2004, at 13:43, Marek Habersack wrote:
Hey all,
As in subject -
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Please always post license conditions to the mailing list, not just
URLs.
Here is a copy-and-paste job:
cryptlib is distributed under a dual license
On Mar 4, 2004, at 17:53, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Copyright 1992-2004 Peter Gutmann. All rights reserved.
This All rights reserved followed by a go nuts licence always
seems to
jar with me. Does anyone else have the same cognitive dissonance
whenever
they read one of these?
No, just
Eric Dorland wrote:
* Ben Goodger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
Hi Ben,
Hi Eric,
I'm replying to this including our QA person, Asa Dotzler who is
interested in these matters.
[snip]
Asa will comment more here.
The other issue that came up was that of the
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:18:57PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:04:22AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Redo my work, Branden?
No, I think them making statements directly here is more effective than
me relaying them. Like I said in another email. If they don't answer
by
On 2004-03-04 22:15:27 + Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...license for cryptlib...]
Except for proper names, this is identical to the license for
the libdb4.0 package, which is already in Debian main.
Sleepycat have published clarification
On 2004-03-05 00:03:34 + Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seeing as they didn't reply I'm attaching the message I received from
them in response to my initial email.
Thanks. I think we tried to give them the desired explanation of why
there are problems (because they changed a
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend
for (mostly-)non-program files?
Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (nearly
43 matches
Mail list logo
