New licensing of Adobe Utopia fonts

Adobe has clarified licensing of Utopia fonts: https://lists.dante.de/pipermail/ctan-ann/2006-November/002366.html http://tug.org/fonts/utopia/LICENSE-utopia.txt Do you think its license is now free according to DFSG? P.S: I do not subscribe to this list, so please Cc: to me. -- Juhapekka

ICCLEIYSIUYA -license

What do you think? Is this license DFSG-free?: http://www.evvk.com/evvktvh.html If you are busy, do not bother; that license is really made tongue in cheek. But I think it has same effect as releasing work as public domain. P.S: I do not subscribe to this list, so please Cc: to me. I can read

New license of BaKoMa TeX fonts

Is this free software license? Wording seems a little bit confusing, when it comes to selling those fonts. CTAN: fonts/cm/ps-type1/bakoma/LICENSE Clip here BaKoMa Fonts Licence This licence covers two font packs

Re: License of Open Solaris CDDL

MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not going to package any software under that license. I just want to know, if installing, running and using software under such license is ethically right thing to do. If it's not about debian, it's probably off-topic for debian-legal. I'll stop here

License of Open Solaris CDDL

Is this really free software license? CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License) http://www.opensolaris.org/ http://www.opensolaris.org/license/cddl_license.txt http://www.opensolaris.org/license/cddl_license.html P.S: I do not subscribe to this mailing list, so please Cc: to me.

Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License

Computer Associates released Ingres under this license: http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/ http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Collateral.asp?CID=61384 Is this really free software license? If it is, who will package Ingres, then? -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot

Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License

Computer Associates released Ingres under this license: http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/ http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Collateral.asp?CID=61384 Is this really free software license? If it is, who will package Ingres, then? -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot

License of Solaris 10: Common Development and Distribution License (draft?)

Okay... Maybe you all have heard that Solaris 10 will be under Open Source-license. Now they have released at least some kind of license text: http://www.sun.com/cddl/ http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9125:200412:dmcacncfamieofeochbn Is that license free according to DFSG? We

Java Researchg License

Is this free software licence according to DFSG?: http://java.net/jrl.csp http://java.sun.com/j2se/jrl_download.html http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8785 http://www.javalobby.org/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=15416tstart=0 P.S: I do not subscribe to this list, so please Cc: to me.

Open Profanity License

Is this free software license according to DFSG: http://www.lcdf.org/xshostakovich/ http://www.lcdf.org/xshostakovich/COPYING P.S: I do not subscribe to this lists, so please Cc: to me. I try remember to check mailing-list archives from WWW. -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * * http colon slash

Canonical list of DFSG-free licenses?

FSF has this list of Free Software Licenses: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html Homepage of OSI has this list of OSI-approved licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ But what about Debian-project? Why we do not have a WWW-page telling official stance of Debian-project to

Re: Yet another bunch of licences

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, +18:05:02 EET (UTC +0200), Lawrence Lessig [EMAIL PROTECTED] pressed some keys: On 2/10/03 3:38 PM, Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it would be really irritating situation, if somebody creates nice software documentation that is meant to be free

Re: Yet another bunch of licences

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, +00:38:27 EET (UTC +0200), Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] pressed some keys: These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and readers of debian-legal think about

Yet another bunch of licences

These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate those licences carefully And I hope, that then FSF can make some statements about

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, +03:23:16 EET (UTC +0200), J.B. Nicholson-Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] pressed some keys: You wrote: This question still remains: Can I listen and watch to RealAudio- and RealVideo-files with completely free software, if I install only RPSL-licenced software from Helix

What new name means?

It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like that: http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt (b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title cannot be confused with the Work, or with

Free (UN)ARJ

Here it is! http://testcase.newmail.ru/ Please package it ASAP! It is under GNU GPL. P.S: I do not subscribe to this mailing-list so Cc: your replies to me if you want. -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * * University of Jyväskylä * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/index.html * *

How to get rid of non-free packers?

When I run command vrms in my Debian GNU/Linux, most of those non-free packages it finds are packers and/or unpackers. How about you? I like to listen to music modules made under Amiga and many of those modules are distributed in Aminet as LHA-archives. Sometimes I use DOS and its software may be

Qt goes GPL

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/04/134218mode=thread http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/09/04/968126399.html http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2269/1/ http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/generalpl.html If that will become true, I'll stop whining about its licence. --

Free Pine?

I do not subscribe to these mailing-lists. You can Cc: to me, if you want, but I am smart enought to read mailing-list archives via WWW. * * * I think I have found OpenSSH of MUAs. It seems that somebody has found last free (in the sense of Debian Free Software Guidleines and Open Source

Licence of SteelBlue

I just found this kewl software and it claims to be Open-Source. http://www.steelblue.com/ Well, here is its licence: http://www.steelblue.com/sb/download/SteelBlue/latest/LICENSE.TXT What you think about? -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * U of Jyväskylä * [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Interbase Licence

Is this free? http://www.borland.com/IPL.html Who will package it? -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * U of Jyväskylä * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/ * * STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW !! --- if i was twice the man i could be,

TkMan is now under Artistic Licence

http://tkman.sourceforge.net/ Need I say more? -- Juhapekka naula Tolvanen * U of Jyväskylä * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/ * * STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW !! --- if i was twice the man i could be, i'd still be half of

Motif is now almost free

This is un-fscking-believable! http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/ http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html QUESTION: How does the Open Group Public license relate to other licenses? ANSWER: The Open Group Public License for Motif closely follows the IBM Public License Version

Cygnus Source Navigator will be GPL'ed

Yes! It is true! : http://lwn.net/2000/0427/ http://www.redhat.com/products/edk/edk_faq.html It seems that almost all parts of Cygnus GNUPro Toolkit are available under GNU GPL or other free licences. http://www.redhat.com/services/gnupro/gnupro_ets.html

real ksh available as sources

More information is here: http://www.kornshell.com/ http://www.research.att.com/~gsf/download/gen/ast-open.html Licence is here: http://www.research.att.com/sw/license/ast-open.html Does anybody know, if that licence qualifies as a Free Software licence according to DFSG? P.S: I don't