Hi,
nodejs is packaged in debian [0], along with libnode-* modules [1]
Today the company owning nodejs announced a new trademark policy [2].
I understand that :
* the logo is not a problem, i just have to remove it from the source
package (it is not in the binary package)
* the TM symbol must be
Paul Wise wrote:
> Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing,
> well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal
> wheel.
Indeed. I believe the French government standardized on CECILL, which
can be trivially converted to GPL.
> Secondly, I was under the impression
Michael Hanke writes:
> | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior
> | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a
> | "Contribution") and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying,
> | distributing or use of any software and/or data from
> |
Firstly, it would be much better if they used an existing,
well-understood free license rather than reinventing the legal wheel.
Secondly, I was under the impression that all US Government works are
supposed to be public domain, under what circumstances is this license
used?
Third, I quote the fu
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:46:04 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400
> > Michael Hanke wrote:
> >
> > > Dear -legal,
> > >
> > > I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license
> > > that has th
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:20:46 -0400
Michael Hanke wrote:
> [I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list]
>
> Karl Goetz wrote:
> > >
> > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright
> >
> > I find the slicer licence rea
I've asked the OSI license mailing list about this, and I wanted to
get the Debian take on it. I didn't see this discussion anywhere else
on this list already. Sorry if I missed it.
The OSI has approved version 1.3 of the NASA Open Source Agreement
(NOSA), but the FSF has a problem with section 3,
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be
> > GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread).
> > Now we are talking about Option 2.
>
> Actually, in the referenced w
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote:
> Are you saying that nothing inside a (complete) debian ISO image
> containing GPLv2 software in executable form fulfills either the
> 3.b) "written offer" or 3.c) "information you received" conditions
> for distribution? That if I give someone a CDR with a
>
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
>> > Option 2
>> >
> [...]
>> I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows
>> copying and modification of "reasonable" amounts.
>
> Agreed, again.
>
>> It would also be incompatib
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:41:40 +0200 Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of
> > reinventing the legal wheel?
>
> Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions
> to use MIT, BSD or CC0.
These are great
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Option 1
>
> As noted, the clause
>
>HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for
>use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited.
>
> makes the license incompatible
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 13:27:48 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
This would seem to imply a field of use restriction
against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In
particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the
specification.
It seems from the linked pages that one go
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:39:05 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:42:32 -0400
> Michael Hanke wrote:
>
> > Dear -legal,
> >
> > I'm currently looking into packaging a software with a license that
> > has the following clause:
> >
> > | Your contribution of software and/or data to X
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 17:41:40 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> >Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of
> >reinventing the legal wheel?
>
> Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with
> suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0.
I'm glad to hea
Paul Wise wrote:
Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of
reinventing the legal wheel?
Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions
to use MIT, BSD or CC0. But they are being stubborn with several
members remaining opposed to the idea of a
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 13:27:48 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> This would seem to imply a field of use restriction
> against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In
> particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the
> specification.
It seems from the linked pages that o
[I've set reply-to to me, because I'm not subscribed to this list]
Karl Goetz wrote:
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/slicer/slicer_3.6.3~svn16075-2/slicer.copyright
>
> I find the slicer licence really dificult to understand, but i guess
> we're heading down a tangent b
Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of
reinventing the legal wheel?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 2011-04-28 16:27, Walter Landry wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
Option 2
... you may:
2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for
inclusion in software ...
3. include reasonable portions of this document in research
materials and publications.
Walter Landry wrote:
> Option 1
As noted, the clause
HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for
use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited.
makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any
time on any other parts.
> Option 2
> --
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Hi,
> The W3C and the HTML WG are currently negotiating a new copyright
> licence for the HTML specifications, and I would like to get some
> clarification about whether or not the proposed licence is compatible
> with the GPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote:
> >I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a
> >torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to
> >e.g., an FTP REST or an HTTP byte-range request.
>
Hi,
The W3C and the HTML WG are currently negotiating a new copyright
licence for the HTML specifications, and I would like to get some
clarification about whether or not the proposed licence is compatible
with the GPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
The proposed licence is Option
24 matches
Mail list logo
