DISregard for a moment that IRAF seems to include code from a nonfree
yacc.
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
GPL? IRAF is not a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > av
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libncar-graphics
Version : 4.4.0 and counting, quickly
Upstream Author : UCAR, C/O Mary Haley
* URL : http://ngwww.ucar.edu/ng/
* License : GPL2
Description : scientific visualization suite from UCAR
Graphi
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > av
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
> > 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
> > mos
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:13:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Package: prozilla
> > Version: 1:1.3.6-11
> > Severity: normal
>
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:47:32PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > > Although the DFSG do not envisage the issue, the GPL
> > > does tackle it: "The source code for a wo
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:12:50PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Good point. Similarly, there is a difference between actively
> > obfuscated "source code" (which isn't the preferred form of
> &g
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:33:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:02:57PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg03961.html
>
> Looks to me like it's been run through cpp, or the equivalent.
Can someone tell me specifically what fil
sly, what still strikes me is that, as points out Justin
> Pryzby, to prefer this coding style Mark Vojkovitch would have had
> to program the registers and the functions "off the top of his
> head", which if there are many does not exactly sound the preferred
> means of writing sou
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it actually
> > >
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
>
> >From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did
> infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:32:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ::
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:20:05PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrot
Hello,
As you may recall, I am (unofficially) maintaining the IRAF data
analysis package. IRAF includes NCAR from UCAR (.. Atmospheric
Research). It was previously decided [1] that the license from NCAR
was very much not DFSG-free.
However, the NCAR routines are now available under the GPL. I
By the way,
I'm not subscribed, please Cc: me.
What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc?
Upstream IRAF apparently has a "UNIX source license" and uses a
modified yacc to produce two of the files. The source includes a
README:
This directory contains the source for t
This is probably hotly debated, but how do math-algorthm copyrights
work?
There are lots of these:
==> ./iraf/math/llsq/original_f/qrbd.f <==
c subroutine qrbd (ipass,q,e,nn,v,mdv,nrv,c,mdc,ncc)
c c.l.lawson and r.j.hanson, jet propulsion laboratory, 1973 jun 12
c to appear in 'solvin
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:59:06PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc?
>
> Presuming this modified yacc isn't trivially replaceable with a Free
> yacc, this would prevent these packages from b
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to
> > BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of
> > BSD UNIX and the whole AT&T vs
DISregard for a moment that IRAF seems to include code from a nonfree
yacc.
IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not
GPL? IRAF is not a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > av
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libncar-graphics
Version : 4.4.0 and counting, quickly
Upstream Author : UCAR, C/O Mary Haley
* URL : http://ngwww.ucar.edu/ng/
* License : GPL2
Description : scientific visualization suite from UCAR
Graphi
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously
> > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now)
> > av
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR
> > 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes
> > mos
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:13:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Package: prozilla
> > Version: 1:1.3.6-11
> > Severity: normal
>
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
>
> It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
> DFSG.
Agree.
> Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to
> make the ki
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:02:43PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
> >
> > It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
> > DFSG.
> Agree.
> I'm filing a
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:02:51AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:03:36 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > What are you going to replace it with? AFAIK, ntp is the only package
> > we have in Debian which supports useful clock synchronization, which
> > is essential for a nu
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:45:41PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev
> escrib?a:
>
> > > > That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
> > > > main, but could be in non-free maybe.
> > > Probably not, ac
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:16:00PM +0100, Jo?o Pinheiro wrote:
> A few days ago I developed a small C application which I'd like to
> distribute (source code included) to help university freshmen this
> year. The problem is that I'm using some routines and ADTs which I'm
> definitely going to need
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:01:40PM +0200, Martin Koegler wrote:
> The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception),
> older versions were LGPL.
So, if you base your non GPL program on the older version, you are in
the clear.
Right? :)
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
acted regarding licensing issues. It might also make sense to
include support addresses here.
Example:
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Support Address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Legal Issues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Copyright Statements:
Include the na
I intended to add to the sections on "copyright statements" and
"distribution licenses" the following text:
This should be copied as nearly verbatim as possible from the
upstream sources.
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:17:46PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Package:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:42:16AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Copyright Holder:
> >
> > This has to include a copyright year, also. Please update the
> > boilerplace to indicate that. Also, the copyrig
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:23:40PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> John Morrissey wrote:
> > I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that explicitly
> > authorizes me to release this software (copyright still held by the company)
> > to the public under a DFSG compliant license.
I
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> >
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
> source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
> by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
> release under th
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:20:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > offer for source code
>
> By "de
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > > under the GPL and MIT, then the develop
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am package libfacets-ruby[1] for the Debian/Ruby Extras maintainers
> team. This package bundles of hundreds of small libraries useful as an
> extra for Ruby's standard library. The authors have all agreed to the
>
ing licenses are potentially bad..
> - How to incorporate other peoples contributions, in the copyright
> statement and/or in the revision part?
Just note when people make nontrivial contributions. It is probably
best to make the note in the copyright header, as in "Copyright (C)
2005
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 06:47:06PM -0500, pryzbyj wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:12:53AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> The idea is to make a code audit easy; grep -A4 -B4 -ir copyright can
> be done on a fairly large source tree without too much trouble, but
> its crazy disappointing if you l
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > Btw, the latest revised license reads:
> >
> > c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
> > right to copy, use and distribute the Contribut
This is somewhat interesting to me, so you could include me in the
mailing. I'm not sure that I'm technically competent to comment on
it, but I'll try to be helpful :)
Why can't you post the spec to a publically available address? You
are concerned that it violates copyright?
--
Clear skies,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:57:31PM +0100, Claudio Moratti wrote:
> Hi!
> some weeks ago I sent a message about kleansweeb trademark issue...
>
> I recived one aswer
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00040.html)... thanks :D
>
> the problem is... I sent a request to upstream auth
have healthy communication with the upstream author,
and would also be good to be able to demonstrate that, at one point,
the contents of /licenese.txt was actually the GPL.
Ideally, the source files would have the GPL header and disclaimer, or
at least something to the effect of "# This file
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:30:50PM +0100, Jakub Nadolny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is a package called display-dhammapada which includes some text in
> Polish language. This text is licensed as follows:
>
> "This publication is not protected by copyright. One can freely copy it
> and use any of it's
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 01:05:44PM +1100, An?bal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 01:50:32AM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
> >Package: wnpp
> >Severity: wishlist
> >Owner: "Martin-??ric Racine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Package name : ispell-et
> >Version : 20030606
> >URL
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0200, José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros
wrote:
> Hi,,
>
> I have a package (php-netcheckip) that was MIT licensed.
> Debian suports this license ?
This is the typical "liberal" license recommended by d-l.
(Whereas the typical "copyleft" license is some incarn
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:40:16PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> The following license is used for IBPP[1] - a library for working with
> Firebird/Interbase database servers.
>
> This library is included (at source level) in FlameRobin[
> > celibacy.1
> > condom.1
> > -- Post-1988 (1992).
>
> Probably a better fit for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
> package.
> > sex.6
> > -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> > so it's in the public domain.
>
> Modified since then, according to emacs CVS.
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:08:50PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> It seems DFSG-free to me but who knows?
>
> I don't like licenses, because I don't like having to worry about all this
> legal stuff just for a simple piece of software I don't really mind anyone
> using. But I also believe tha
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:18:37AM -0500, Ed Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
> > package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
> > what you suggested in the bug commen
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
>
> Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> proble
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:59:07PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I *swear* that one of the project documents said something highly
> >> relevant, to the effect
Greetings,
I'm near completion of a Debian package of IRAF, previously packaged by
Zed Paubre, who has agreed to sponsor me. I believe this new release
has new license issues.
Here's the deal. IRAF depends on TABLES (distributed separately, but
TABLES depends on IRAF, so I'm preparing a new tar
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:59:01AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 'Under new guidelines from the National Science Foundation, this NCAR
> > software package is copyrighted and, therefore, not in the public domain.
> &g
59 matches
Mail list logo
