On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:14:38AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:49:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > ##
> > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> > Thus, like any non-source form, it must be ac
Hi!
In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
##
I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied b
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:52:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Over the years, d-legal has discussed a number of packages which
> automatically download non-free software, under some circumstances.
>
> The obvious example is web browsers with extension repositories
> containing both free and non-f
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:54:15 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > What about a somewhat less paranoid option: GPL2+noA
> > (GPL v2 or any higher, except for licenses from the Affero branch).
>
> Do you mean "G
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:38:21 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > There's another possibility: dual-licensing your code under the GPLv2
> > only and the GPLv3 only.
>
> You're right. That would be the following case:
>
> o if you want to
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I could equally use that reasoning for the mandatory redistribution case.
> > No software under that license is free for you, but that's the fault of the
> > situation and not the license. The bug
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:54:38PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Allow me to propose my own convenient test, which
> > > I refer to as the "Bloody Murderer Test":
> > In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is
> > free
> > for
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > I think you are talking about clause 3b of GPLv2, aren't you?
> >
> > Maybe you picked the wrong example, because clause 3b *is* a non-free
> > restriction. Fortunately there's another alternative option,
> > represented by clause
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:00:38PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >Free Software, when it's really free and not merely a ruse to sneak some
> >proprietary crap through, makes us free from legal concerns -- both "am I
> >allowed to use X?" and "I wouldn't want people to have a right to use Y
> >wit
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> >Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then?
>
> I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
> see informing users of their l
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Iain Nicol wrote:
> >If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
> >would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
> >but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any use
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> the largest
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:15:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
> the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
> will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose
> descriptive parts could b
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:24:04PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am Montag, den 14.05.2007, 13:25 +0200 schrieb Thijs Kinkhorst:
> > I've reviewed the licence, and I'm afraid it's a bit more bothered than
> > that
> > of the ms core fonts for the web: "You may use the software only to view
>
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:45:51AM +0200, Jabka Atu wrote:
> how can i be avoide being sued if some one will use it for spreading
> ilgeal content.
Well, a large percentage of illegal content is spread using Apache. We
obviously need to remove it because it's a tool for criminals.
--
1KB
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> was recently forked from cdrecord.
>
> The current license seems to be GPLv2 + additional restrictions which
> IMHO is not right because GPLv2 doesn't allow any suc
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 09:35:34AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> By the way, are there still a few countries not in the Berne Union? Maybe
> copyright isn't completely cross-jurisdiction, but it seems near enough.
The only "real" country left is Taiwan, and it's mostly because the rebels
in the mainland
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
> > > Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
> > > course, the curre
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:02:17PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why we have main/Non-US?
> > 1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
> So we can make use of it. :)
This would be non-US-Japan-UK-Germany (IIRC
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> >> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
> >The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
> >ab
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:08:58AM +, Jason Spiro wrote:
> Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at
> > all. It speaks about "Your" (ie, the user/distrib
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder
> > will terminate:
> > [...]
> > (c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the
> > term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement
> > (in
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:01:30AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a copyright
> for
> the code to have it in Public Domain ?
Until author's death + X years, unfortunately :(
And to make it even worse, X is increasing at a rate faste
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 05:55:14PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[Note that this only applies to the GPL when it is serving as a
> >licence under which a work in Debian is released. Random inclusion of
> >the GPL otherwise is not allowed bec
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've tried contacting Janusz Nowacki on 28 Apr 2005 and 14 Sep 2005
but received no answer. He's obviously alive, so this could be caused
either by his lack of time or a mail misconfiguration some
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Except for the source issue. The concrete example, as you might have
guessed, are the ANTP fonts, which are available as PostScript Type1,
TrueType and OpenType fonts.
I have heard a talk of the author, Janusz Nowacki, last week at the
DANTE meeting, and
26 matches
Mail list logo
