Hi Debian-legal.
We (gNewSense) just had someone report [3] two clauses in the krb5 (source)
package. [1] has its current (Sid) copyright file.
I dont see a bug about it, so i'm asking if someone could look at the licence
and say if they think the clauses are DFSG free or not?
Thanks in
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
---
The following copyright and permission notice
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Ivan Ristic:
The problem is that an Apache installation typically consists of many
modules, each with a potentially different licence. I am only aware of
the incompatibility between the GPLv2 and the ASL, although other
issues may exist. Although GPLv2 is our licence of
Walter Landry wrote:
Ivan Ristic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that it's possible to design a licensing exception that would
essentially say the following:
- For non-ModSecurity-related modules, allow any open source licence.
We would either call for any OSI-certified licence, or
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... I think the license of krb5
(http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.4.3-5ubuntu0.2/)
has two unclear sections regarding freedom:
* line 18-21: Export of this software from the United States of
America may require a
Andres Mejia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I'm sorry, I forgot to ask about other concerns that myself and
another member of the Debian Games team had.
You should have been more clear that you were concerned not about freeness,
but about the ability to
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:28 +, John Halton wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* line 81-83: OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat
this software
Hi,
I am concerned about the following license snippet, basically point 3 which
talk about use of authors' name.
This comes from a source included in conduit (version 0.3.6, not yet
uploaded)
Please, CC me on replies
---
Python bindings for the Box.net API
Copyright (c) 2007 Thomas
Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008 à 23:25 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo a
écrit :
Hi,
I am concerned about the following license snippet, basically point 3
which talk about use of authors' name.
This comes from a source included in conduit (version 0.3.6, not yet
uploaded)
3. The name of the
Julien Cristau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a
third party. I
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat
this software freedom.
AIUI this says that
FYI, as posted on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list...
Original Message
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:09:36 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Standards] XSF IPR Policy
As approved by the Board of Directors, the
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by
a third party. I think this could threat this software
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, as posted on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list...
Thanks for passing this on.
As approved by the Board of Directors, the XSF's IPR Policy has been
updated to use a modified MIT license rather than the old Creative
Commons Attribution License:
Just curious, e.g., dreamhost.com modifies Debian .debs to produce
their hosting environment, which we Dreamhost users then use on our
shell accounts there.
If I can do
$ cat file
then I should always also be able to cat the source (.deb) to that
same cat, no? (I can at present.)
Yes I read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just curious, e.g., dreamhost.com modifies Debian .debs to produce
their hosting environment, which we Dreamhost users then use on our
shell accounts there.
If I can do
$ cat file
then I should always also be able to cat the source (.deb) to that
same cat, no?
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, as posted on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list...
Thanks for passing this on.
As approved by the Board of Directors, the XSF's IPR Policy has been
updated to use a modified MIT license rather than the old Creative
Commons
Ben Finney wrote:
The answer depends on whether Dreamhost are, under the relevant
jurisdiction, distributing the modified work to you. It could be
argued that they are not: they are merely using the modified work, and
allowing you to access a machine they own; thus, the modified work is
not
Argh!
Are you right. I had a feeling that I had read that before, but tonight I
was in the mood that this was imposing a clause that might cause a license
problem, and as it was not stating in any other place that it is a BSD
license, I didn't realized.
Thanks
On Jan 23, 2008 11:34 PM, Josselin
20 matches
Mail list logo
