Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

>> Where can I find the text of the NOSA v2.0 ? > > I was going to suggest > https://web.archive.org/web/20150923151504/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/000610.html > > but the attachment containing the text was scrubbed. Here it is: NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT

Re: IUPAC/InChI-Trust Licence DFSG-Compliant ?

> could you please clarify if the license below can be considered > DFSG-compatible ? > > Section 2 doesn't sound very good That’s extremely interesting. Could you elaborate, please? I did not wdiff(1) it, but it definitely sounds like a word-for-word copy of second GNU Lesser GPL to me. :-)

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

> Let's restate the facts for the -legal crowd. Interesting question. Still no any response? May some input from a passer-by (IANAL, IANADD) be helpful? > I'm packaging ultracopier 1.2.3.6 which is under GPLv3 license. The source > code supports several build configuration, one of them being

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: >> Florian Weimer wrote: #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. >>> (snip) >>> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence

[Sorry for sending unfinished letter.] > Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I > think it's fine. IBM PL v1.0 contains a choice of law clause and it’s listed as suitable for Debian’s main [0]. As for arbitration clause, could anyone explain, what’s the practical

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence

> Francesco Poli dislikes the choice of law and courts clause, but I > think it's fine. (IMO it would not be fine if it specified Russian or > Chinese courts.) Interesting idea. Any substationation for such a discrimination of origin?

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the >> > license? >> >> It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical >> Permission Notice and

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

> Hello, > > I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the > license of app/tools/dirent.*. > > The license text is > [quote] > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its >  documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided >  

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

> Hello, > > I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the > license of app/tools/dirent.*. > > The license text is > [quote] > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its >  documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided >  

Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?

> Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"): >> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this >> paragraph: >> >> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner, >> > LICENSEE is not allowed to: >> > [...] >> > b)

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

> I reply myself... actually I think I have not understood your statements > correctly, reading it again it seems that you think that the mrouted > code is somewhat dual licensed with GPL or Stanford.txt and you can > choose which one to apply. That's not the case, when combined into a GPL >

Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?

> I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and igmpproxy > started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And because BSD is > compatible with GPL, you can relicense those parts to GPL and adds your > own GPL code to it. Then whole package can be redistributed only under

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

>> > Are ‘key recovery tools’ illegal somewhere? Tools for circumventing >> > digital restristions measures definitely are. >> >> If you use them on files you legally own, they are legal. They will be >> illegal for cracking content for which you should not have access. > > Another way of saying

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

>> >> > If so I will consider whether to write a cracker or key generator for >> >> > RAR and upload it to unstable! >> >> >> >> Do you really belive that *this* is acceptable? This kind of >> >> software (‘cracks’ at least) is illegal in many jurisdictions. >> > >> > Key recovery tools for

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

>> In a nutshell, the preamble of the new license seems to transform it >> into a license agreement: Sorry, I have not got the point. What it was before if not a licence agreement? > To save others finding the licence, here it is: > >http://www.win-rar.com/winrarlicense.html?=0 I suppose,

Re: GPL with exclusive re-licensing exception (BSD3)

"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes: I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal advice. > is it possible/feasible/DFSG-compatible to have software licensed under > the GPL2+, but with a special explicit license-grant as BSD-3 to a > single person for a specific project?

Re: Bug#826379: Maintaining of CodeBlocks

"Tobias Frost" writes: > As far as I understood it BSD-4-clause is only free because the Regents of the > UC dropped the advertising clause in > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change. So IMHO the > current case is clearly non-free... Nope. 4-BSDL is free

Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?

On 19/10/15 17:26, Ian Jackson wrote: A copyright licence does not need to be in writing. (In the UK, at least[1], and I would be surprised it if were different elsewhere.) Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a