Re: Review needed: Gentium font re-released under the SIL Open ?Font License

2005-11-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current Open Font License appears to have excessive restrictions upon the names of modified works. The Gentium font licence in particular reserves these terms: While this may be annoying, I can't see why it should not be DFSG-free. -- ciao, Marco -- To

Re: Clarification regarding PHP License and DFSG status

2005-11-29 Thread mjr
Charles Fry The one big thing that everyone in this thread has missed is that we are trying to establish the utility of this licence to software explicitely distributed by the PHP Group at php.net in Pear or Pecl. Distributing it doesn't mean much. They don't hold the copyright to all the

BSD-licensed upstream tarball but needs form filled

2005-11-29 Thread Rafael Laboissiere
We are seeking advice on how to proceed about an upstream tarball distribution issue. The Debian Octave Group is planning to package the SUNDIALS library (http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/sundials/main.html) for integration into Octave. This package is released under a BSD License

Re: BSD-licensed upstream tarball but needs form filled

2005-11-29 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Rafael Laboissiere wrote: The problem is that prior to downloading the tarball (at http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/sundials/download/download.html), the user is asked to fill a form in a web page. Our question is: does this restriction decrease somehow the freeness of the package? If yes, how

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] BSD-licensed upstream tarball but needs form filled

2005-11-29 Thread Andrey Romanenko
Hello, On Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:52, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: We are seeking advice on how to proceed about an upstream tarball distribution issue. The Debian Octave Group is planning to package the SUNDIALS library (http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/sundials/main.html) for integration into

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] BSD-licensed upstream tarball but needs form filled

2005-11-29 Thread Andrew Donnellan
The webforms are compulsory *for downloading the software from their site*. Doesn't affect the package in any way at all though. andrew On 11/30/05, Andrey Romanenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, On Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:52, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: We are seeking advice on how to

New Adobe ICC profile license evaluation

2005-11-29 Thread Oleksandr Moskalenko
Hi, I package icc-profiles - a collection of color profiles suitable for usage with color management enabled software like The Gimp, Scribus, and CinePaint. Among the people involved in this area several classic Adobe ICC profiles have been in high standing for a long time. Adobe just released

TiffIO license agreement

2005-11-29 Thread Oleksandr Moskalenko
I need to package tiffio (http://artis.imag.fr/Software/TiffIO/) either together with my lprof package or separately to enable lprof libtiff4 access. TiffIO is covered by a non-standard license full text of which is listed below. My analysis of the license has shown that I can easily bundle it

Re: Kleansweep, trademark issue and Debian

2005-11-29 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:57:31PM +0100, Claudio Moratti wrote: Hi! some weeks ago I sent a message about kleansweeb trademark issue... I recived one aswer (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00040.html)... thanks :D the problem is... I sent a request to upstream author,

Firefox licensing issue

2005-11-29 Thread Arc
While Firefox itself is licensed under a free license, there's an issue in the way the Mozilla foundation designed it to include their own package system for extensions and themes. Take Firefox 1.5 for example, I've had it for a few hours, downloaded a few extensions.. whoops. Looking at the