On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:00:30PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I've used the public domain implementation written by Colin Plumb, as
> also used in dpkg. It's nigh-on a drop-in replacement.
I used it in packaging teapop, too, and I seem to recall messing around
with it to make it a completely
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:25:32 + Henning Makholm wrote:
>> We'll want IBM or AT&T to fix the license before the consensus changes
>> to consider the license bugs non-free, though.
> As I said, the ideal solution would be to persuade IBM to publish a
Derek Haines ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've been having a hard time finding answers to the following GPL
> questions (can anyone here help?) :
>
> I write a piece of software from scratch and release it under the GPL.
> At the top of my source files, I have a standard copyright notice:
>
> Cop
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:25:11PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
> everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
> restricted by his exclusive legal rights."
>
> That might work.
Come on, do
>Hi!
>
>Would a software with the following statement and without any further
>copyright or licensing notice be free?
No.
>"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
>
>Any issues with that?
Copyright law requires *explicit* permission in order to do a whole bunch of
things. This appears insuf
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:25:32 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> We'll want IBM or AT&T to fix the license before the consensus changes
> to consider the license bugs non-free, though.
As I said, the ideal solution would be to persuade IBM to publish a new
and better version of the CPL (thus exploitin
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >People like Marco keep saying "the DFSG doesn't say it explicitly,
> >therefore it should be allowed", which is irresponsible, favoring
> >getting their warez in main (despite the latest ugly restrictions
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > People like Marco keep saying "the DFSG doesn't say it explicitly,
> > therefore it should be allowed", which is irresponsible, favoring
> > getting their warez in main (despite the latest ugly restrictions)
> > over keeping De
* Radu Spineanu:
> I was looking over flowc[1], and wondering if i could package it.
> However i am not sure about the license[2].
> It contains some restrictions about distribution:
>
> '3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> must display the following acknowl
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:16:06AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:50:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > > For this reason, Debian should reject choice of venue clauses as non-free.
> > > At best, they give an underdog copyright holder a small advantage while
> > >
Scripsit Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the record, I'm withdrawing this draft. I still think it is a
>> reasonable accurate description of the consensus, but I have been
>> convinced that aiming for http://www.d.o/legal/* is not the right way
>
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:04:14 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >*D R A F T*
> >Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
>
> For the record, I'm withdrawing this draft. I still think it is a
> reasona
doko wrote:
>[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
>
>Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
>> Howeer, /usr/share/doc/python2.4/copyright does not include this
>> license. In fact, almost none of the licenses at
>> http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node822.html are included. At
>> least
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 01:27:55PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?
>
> Copyright (C) 1991-2, RSA Data Security, Inc. Created 1991. All
> rights reserved.
>
> License to copy and use this software is granted provided that it
> is identified
Hello
I was looking over flowc[1], and wondering if i could package it.
However i am not sure about the license[2].
It contains some restrictions about distribution:
'3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgment: "This produc
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Package: python
> Severity: serious
>
> The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
> modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
> DFSG #3 (and also is jus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>People like Marco keep saying "the DFSG doesn't say it explicitly,
>therefore it should be allowed", which is irresponsible, favoring
>getting their warez in main (despite the latest ugly restrictions)
>over keeping Debian Free. Instead, he and others should be arguing
W
17 matches
Mail list logo
