On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:10:53AM -0300, Eriberto Mota wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). [...]
>
> My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because
> lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we have the
> possibility to install prop
Ian Jackson writes:
> This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal
> documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author.
We would hope so, yes. They also take into account the intent of the
*current* copyright holder.
Courts are also not infallible guardian
Pierre Rudloff writes ("Re: Simple doubt about section to use"):
> Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games'
> licence.
> So I guess we should add it to contrib ?
I think so, I'm afraid.
Maybe there is part of it that doesn't involve the library feature, or
in other
Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games'
licence.
So I guess we should add it to contrib ?
Regards,
Le 16/09/2014 19:18, Eriberto a écrit :
Thanks Ian!
Pierre, you need think about what to do.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-09-16 13:46 GMT-03:00 Ian Jackson :
At DC1
2014-09-16 14:53 GMT-03:00 Pierre Rudloff :
> Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games'
> licence.
> So I guess we should add it to contrib ?
I think that it is the better way.
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
Thanks Ian!
Pierre, you need think about what to do.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-09-16 13:46 GMT-03:00 Ian Jackson :
> At DC14 we had a conversation about the fact that at the moment it is
> not possible for a user to say only once, when installing Debian, that
> they only want free software.
>
> I
Eriberto Mota writes ("Simple doubt about section to use"):
> I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). From upstream[1]:
This seems like a package manager.
> My doubt is if is a main or contrib program. I think in main, because
> lutris can survive running DFSG games only. However, we hav
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright"):
> Florent Rougon writes:
> > 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement:
> > # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
> > # Copyright (C) 2000 ...
> > #
> > # This progra
Hi,
I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). From upstream[1]:
---
"Lutris is an open source gaming platform for GNU/Linux. It makes
gaming on Linux easier by taking care of managing, installing and
providing optimal settings for games.
Lutris does not sell games, you have to provide you
> I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly
> marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license
> conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0
> http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0> is a good one IMO.
If they really want public domain, th
Florent Rougon writes:
> 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement:
>
> # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
> # Copyright (C) 2000 ...
> #
> # This program is in the public domain.
>
>but, as I understand it, public domain is the absence
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit :
>
> 1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement:
>
> # Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
> # Copyright (C) 2000 ...
> #
> # This program is in the public domain.
>
>but, a
Hello,
I have a few questions regarding public domain and DEP-5-compliant
debian/copyright files:
1. I have files in a program with the following "copyright" statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public doma
13 matches
Mail list logo
