[Moved from debian-devel]
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 11:54:17 -0500, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:24:56PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> > That's just one side of the story. The other side is that having
> > libraries GPLed rather than LGPLed can he
On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 21:45:49 +1100, Stuart Lamble wrote:
> The solver is Copyright (C) 1992, Xerox Corporation.
> ^^^
> This is, literally, the whole copyright statement (as far as I can tell)
> for this particular file.
I vaguely recall that Xer
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 18:51:13 -0600, David Welton wrote:
[code crusader]
> I talked with the author a while ago, and tried to nudge him towards
> the GPL. Since you cannot distribute changes,
Are you sure that's still the case?
Quoting the release announcement (Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Followups to debian-legal please]
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 19:53:59 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> David Carlisle, on behalf of the LaTeX3 Project, just posted to
> comp.text.tex the announcement of the "LaTeX Project Public License",
> valid for the next upcoming LaTeX release. This is of in
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 16:12:20 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Ray writes:
> > (http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid.shtml).
>
> "Document Not Found"
Strange. It works fine from here:
penguin ray 10:37 /tmp > env -u http_proxy HEAD
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid
patents (see mozilla.org's troubles with Wang over a
videotext-related patent).
It would be good for Debian to have (semi-)professional legal advice to fall
back on in these matters.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be
and this permission notice may be included in
:translations approved by the Free Software Foundation instead of in the
:original English.
HTH,
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 13:01:23 +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions,
> > including translations in other languages, of this manual under the
> > conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulted work
> > is distributed
As found on Linux Today:
news://news.mozilla.org/36AF89D1.7C95097B%40netscape.com
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 02:52:29 +, Paul Puri wrote:
> In addition, I would also like to know what a Debian CD distributor
> would be able to do with the logo.
>
> What are the license terms of the logo. Has it been trademarked?
See http://www.debian.org/logos/ . Not however that new logo
On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 17:45:35 -0700, Thaddeus Black wrote:
> This message is to confirm that it would indeed be acceptable for a Debian
> CD distributor to have the descriptive word Debian in its name. In the
> same way that, say, Linux System Labs has the word Linux in its name. If
> there were
of, or even request for, permission to use the "Debian"
service mark.
Perhaps someone here could draft a friendly letter reminding them that
"Debian" is a registered service mark, that the Debian project has not made
up its mind yet whether or not to allow the use of the s
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 22:10:20 +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I see a couple of remarks being made by people:
> * we can't possibly check all uses of the term `Debian', either in
> company, product or domainnames
Domainnames is quite doable: http://www.domainsurfer.com
Currently:
Debian /
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 12:35:57 -0500, Mike Goldman wrote:
> Source: jikespg
> 50bade75066330aa0eb83d8f5a60ba03 781 devel extra jikespg_1.1-1.dsc
^
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 13:51:30 -0500, Mike Goldman wrote:
> Source: jikes
> 53485dfff657f3fdddc93ab
Seen on /. :
:Several people followed up the today's earlier apple Open Source article by
:pointing us to Apple's Official Website on Open Source.
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
:Features Yet Another License, the Apple Public Source License
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/a
I've talked to the author of a Qt-using GPL-ed program about resolving the
license issue with his code; he's quite responsive.
What I need is a nicely phrased "despite what the GPL requires, it's OK to
link this code against Qt and redistribute the resulting binaries" statement
- can someone here
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 10:37:12 -0500, Fredrick Paul Eisele wrote:
[template copyleft for manual]
This is what's used in a lot of GNU documentation; sweet, short, simple.
Copyright .
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice an
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 13:46:12 +0100, J.H.M. Dassen quoted:
>Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
> manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, that the entire resulting
> derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 21:28:55 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> However, the FSF was usccesful to enforce the release of source code under
> the terms of the GPL because of this in the past, so nobody seems to take
> the risk. (For example, ncftp was linked with libreadline).
ncftp is developed
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 01:04:23 -0700, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> See the www.w3.org, and check out it's problem with P3P technology.
See http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/19452.html for media
coverage.
http://www.w3.org/P3P/ (the most obvious place), unfortunately has no
details on i
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 11:12:57 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, I have a program that I intend to fork and start maintaing myself.
> The Copyright file contains this information (program name changed to
> protect the innocent):
[BSD-style without ad clause]
> ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be di
o substitute XForms code
> with FLTK code.
IIRC, this is what the PCMCIA maintainer did recently.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks
| live i
On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:37:04 +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> 3. Redistribution and use of modified source and binary forms are
>permitted provided that at least one of the following conditions are met:
>
> A. Modifications are placed in the public domain or are
> made available un
On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:49:33 +0200, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> > B. Use of the modified version is restricted to within
> > the corporation or organization that made the modifications.
>
> This violates DFSG #1/#3: the modified version cannot be redistributed
> free
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 00:22:37 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
>
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
>
> that would be a derived work?
A similar discussion comes up on gnu.misc.discuss regularly regarding
linking against a GPLed library like re
According to a slashdot comment, a new version of Jikes will be released
soon under the IBM Public License v1.0
(http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/srcDownload/license.html); this license is
already used for the IBM Open Visualization Data Explorer
(http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/).
Can someone go ove
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 18:01:50 -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 09:02:47AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > I believe that several packages in main have a licence which forces
> > any modified version to use another name. (TeX is a typical example.)
> Is that why TeX
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 14:08:09 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
> http://www.troll.no/free-license.html
> So, can anyone who followed the discussion summarizes if it is free or not,
> now that it is the official licence?
>
> At first glance, I would
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 14:08:09 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
Now that Qt 2 is out, can someone tell me what the debian-legal-blessed
exception statement for GPL-using-Qt software is?
I convinced the author of pi-address
(http://www.in-berlin.de/Use
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 18:04:39 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Jikes belongs to IBM, so they'll may be change their licence
>
> This is quite likely.
Hasn't this happened already? Quoting
http://www.research.ibm.com/jikes/license/index.htm :
:
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 11:45:27 -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>OmniORB and TAO both are licensed as Free -- GPL/LGPL combinations by
>their respective creators. Consequently, omniorb and TAO have
>historically been deemed "Free".
>
>However, we recently realized that the followi
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 12:17:21 -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> >Is the IDL compiler a separate part of the OmniORB and TAO packages, or
> >do they contain GPL-ed changes for it? (If it's the latter, I think it's
> >the same regrettable situation as KDE, i.e. not redistributable in binary
> >form)
>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:44:07 +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> I think parts of the Debian+KDE discussion on the KDE Maillist will be
> interesting for you too.
Quite frankly, I doubt it - I see numerous misunderstandings that have been
covered many times already.
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, did m
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 20:21:10 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> And some countries, like your, don't care about software patents.
Its true that algorithms cannot be patented in the Netherlands. I'm not sure
that means that the Netherlands don't care about software patents: what
about foreign softwa
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> Is this free?
> Who will package it?
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0003/msg00451.html
HTH,
Ray
--
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to e
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 07:04:48 -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> Would it have been okay for Debian to make kde-source packages without
> fear of being sued by the debian-fear-inspiring kde or qt
> folks?
To the best of my knowledge, yes. See
http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008 for why KDE is
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 08:15:11 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There's a reason for us not to distribute debian sources: contributory
> infringement.
(We're getting into the really hypothetical here, as Troll and KDE are
working to make this discussion moot, but...)
If I understand you correctly, y
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:24:06 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm surprised by this paragraph -- either it's very obviously wrong or
> I'm completely missing your point. I'll try responding based on what
> I understand you to be saying:
>
> Of course we're encouraging people to use the stuff we pu
ibution and modification are not
:covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Thus, in the privacy of my own system, I can compile a GPL-ed source against
whatever evil licensed library I wish (say a binary-only one like libforms).
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe al
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 16:44:52 +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> Here's a copy of the license. Any comments will be greatly
> appreciated; the author is willing to change it if it doesn't meet our
> needs.
The nasm author(s) have said they'd release it under GPL; that would clear
all problems
(The CAST-256 thingy goes into non-free until I know what the CAST-256
> conditions is. That is no problem.)
CAST-128 was specifically not patented to allow it to become an IETF
standard. I hope that if it's patented, its licensing condititions will be
favourable.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dasse
4,746; Unisys' as 4,558,302]
Parts of IBM are quite cooperative when it comes to free software (think
Haifa scheduler, Jikes, Secure Mailer aka Postfix), so perhaps it may be
possible to get IBM to object to Unisys' patent and then free it.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOU
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:46:04 +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> Personally, I would say Yes it is interesting, BUT: Lizard is released under
> the QPL, which is incompatible to the GPL.
Yes.
> I'm quite sure that somehow this will prevent us from using it without
> worrying about license issues a
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 10:34:30 +, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Is RC4 encryption a problem with the US export laws ?
I suspect so. It may depend on the bitsize (IIRC, regular netscape uses
40-bit RC4), but even for the case of an allowed bitsize, an export license
might be required.
> What about
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 16:08:14 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Clauses such as this have in the past been deemed incompatible with the
> DFSG.
And the standard response was to request they be modified from a requirement
to a request. (Please inform...)
Ray
--
ART A friend of mine in Tulsa, Ok
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:04:08 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
> > modifiaction to be in main.
>
> Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
Yes. See e.g. perlfaq(1p).
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 21:37:13 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> There's got to be someone at Stanford who can get to him.
See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html for contact
details.
Ray
--
Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 14:36:56 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> The Debian mutt package also continues to ignore the wishes of mutt's
> upstream authors, who do belive mutt contains crypto hooks, and who only
> make the version available from outside the US for that reason.
Mutt's current primary upstr
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 08:47:20 -0800, aphro wrote:
> What i'd like to know, if anyone can enlighten me is whats teh deal with
> using encryption in a commercial enviornment?
There is no /general/ problem using encryption in a commercial environment.
Some (reasonably popular) encryption algorit
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> > Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's
> > probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't
> > distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if
> > there i
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 19:27:54 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is good reason to believe this is not the case (at least in the US)
> > based on the "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service
> > Company, Inc." Supreme Court case
>
>
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:12:46 -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> After consulting with debian-legal, I emailed Bigelow and Holmes tonight
> to ask them to reconsider the license they have chosen so that they can be
> included in debian. If anyone is interested, I can post that email here.
You ma
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 16:19:48 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution of
> binaries which also contain OpenSSL code.
Quoting the NOTICE file from the Exim 3.36 source:
:Copyright (c) 1999 University of Cambridge
:
:This program is free
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 00:38:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Are software patents legal in .nl?
IANAL, but AFAIK the answer is "Yes", or at least "Effectively yes".
The Netherlands are a member of the European Union which is working on
regulations that explicitly allow software patents (albe
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 13:23:28 +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Freeswan upstream developers are currently thinking of switch to openssl.
> I already pointed out to them that this might need a change in their own
> (GPL) license statement so that linking to openssl is explicitly allowed.
Perhaps y
TOG have released Motif under an "Open Source" license which isn't. (See
also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 )
Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/:
>"Open Source" programs mean software for which the source code is available
>without confidential
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 08:53:06 -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> However, if you search the packages list on the official Debian web site,
> Qt1 is there large as life in the non-free section
True. The license terms on Qt1 allow for us to distribute binaries; they do
not meet the Debian Free Softwar
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:44:07 +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> I think parts of the Debian+KDE discussion on the KDE Maillist will be
> interesting for you too.
Quite frankly, I doubt it - I see numerous misunderstandings that have been
covered many times already.
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, did mo
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 20:21:10 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> And some countries, like your, don't care about software patents.
Its true that algorithms cannot be patented in the Netherlands. I'm not sure
that means that the Netherlands don't care about software patents: what
about foreign softwar
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> Is this free?
> Who will package it?
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0003/msg00451.html
HTH,
Ray
--
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to en
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 10:38:06 -0800, Clark Rawlins wrote:
> I saw something like this on either the fsf or the GPL site but
> I can't find it now.
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain.html#SEC6
HTH,
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
[I'm probably repeating myself, but this is for the benefit of debian-legal
readers and may help to shorten discussion]
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 16:10:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> could someone please tell me if this patch:
> - contains any code with legal problems (e.g. patents)?
Not that I'm a
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58 -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense.
As a side note, CWI (the Mathematisch Centrum) have prior experience in
free software related licensing issues as e.g. Python was originally
developed there. One option is
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:05:33 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:21:04AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > The Heimdal implementation links against libssl in order to get its
> > crypto. How does this effect GPLed applications? Note that the
> > applications do not normally
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that
> NeXTStep distributed only the object files
It's in "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism" by RMS,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
"Consider GNU Ob
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 00:50:30 +0200, Tamas SZERB wrote:
> After a while I'm here to discuss the situation of the silc-server and
> silc-client's problems why they cannot be in the official debian release.
> Long time ago I got an email which I unfortunately lost concerning the
> patent problems
66 matches
Mail list logo
