Le 28 juin 2023 16:25:09 GMT+01:00, Joshua Allen a écrit :
>Dear Debian Legal,
>
>I was going through the Nethack General Public License and even though it is a
>free software license obviously not compatible with the GNU GPL, how do you
>maintain it without calling it nethack though since th
2019-12-15 1:26:28 PM Jonas Smedegaard : [...]
> As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits
> classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software".
>
> As I understand it, you personally classify license fulltexts as
> "non-free software" and then add a
Eriberto Mota wrote:
> I am packaging a software that distribute a Tux image [...]
> The original license can be viewed here[1]. [...]
> [1] https://isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/
That page also includes "Feel free to do whatever you see fit with the
images, you are encouraged to integrate them int
ss I'm going blind again, you forgot to tell us what [1] and [2] are.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.
Riley Baird wrote [apparently not citing authors]:
>> DFSG-free software usually refrain from restricting use or download.
>
> Is this a requirement? The Microsoft Public License states:
>
> If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not
> accept the license, do not use the softw
violation of DFSG §5, right?
Yes, it probably would - how would the listed people ever gain a new
valid licence?
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
t; non-DFSG free?
Discrimination against named persons fails DFSG 5 for sure, doesn't it?
It might also fail 1 or 3 because it seems like the reverse of licences
that REQUIRE authors to disclose their names, which I think have been
widely regarded as failing to meet DFSG and even gave rise to t
Y SAJIP BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES OR
# ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS,
WHETHER
# IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT
# OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
CC
On 4 August 2014 13:26:11 GMT+01:00, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>(-project dropped from the CC)
>
>MJ Ray writes ("Re: [PHP-QA] Debian and the PHP license"):
>> Secondly, unless it says otherwise, a naming restriction in a
>> copyright licence doesn't permit hone
On 11 July 2014 16:20:45 CEST, Mattias Ellert
wrote:
>Standardization bodies tend to want to not have random
>people making random changes to their standardization documents that
>would create incompatible versions of the standards. The documentation
>licenses used by these organization therefore
On 31 July 2014 01:03:00 CEST, Charles Plessy wrote:
>Back to the question of rebranding, the PHP developers have already
>explained
>that because PHP is a three-letter word, they are not in a position to
>protect their name with a trademark. Therefore, they do it with a
>license.
>
>We can not
On 2 August 2014 04:51:30 CEST, Riley Baird
wrote:
>Another thought: Doesn't the Zend Engine License also have the same
>problem as the PHP License in that we are not allowed to use the words
>"Zend" or "Zend Engine" for modified versions of the Zend Engine?
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
On 1 August 2014 17:59:11 CEST, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>Similar situations often arise in relation to trademarks. Our usual
>approach in such cases has been to rely on the informal assurances,
>and not seek any kind of formal trademark licence amendment.
I thought we relied on the fact that tradema
On 30 July 2014 22:00:17 CEST, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> If Debian OTOH decides to make their own
>fork of PHP, they can distribute it still, but not under the name of
>"PHP". I don't think Debian even claimed that the thing they distribute
>under the name of PHP is anything but the original product,
;t remember what I thought of that :-)
> [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
I'll update that now.
Hope that helps,
- --
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My
is, I think, whether Content can be licensed
> under ODC-By. If not, another question is whether it has to be licensed under
> another license, and if so, which license would be most appropriate.
No and (as ever) it depends on the aim but I'd prefer one of MIT/BSD/GPL.
Hope that helps,
please?
IMO, Oracle can dead-end BDB if they want. If it's still wanted,
hopefully someone will fork it and maintain it better. I think that's
happened to other Oracle projects when they went a bit nutty.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit
ver a Derivative Database. You are
> solely responsible for any modifications of a Derivative Database made
> by You or another Person at Your direction. You may not impose any
> further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed
> under this License.
This helps to me
not yet written down,
so let's revisit it a month or so after that sort of change.
I will submit the list topic change as a wishlist bug Real Soon Now
unless I'm told not to.
Regards,
- --
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supp
not going to be a problem.)
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://ww
th subscribed
to debian-dak as suggested in that message, I've done a bit of
-l10n-english-style language tidyup work, but debian-dak doesn't seem
to do anything relevant to licensing as far as I've seen so far.
Confused,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-mor
On 02/09/13 21:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> MJ Ray phonecoop.coop> writes:
>> > whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers
>> > seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote
>> > http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-le
ler than I'd like, for various reasons mostly related to working on
other projects, but I feel pabs (maintains over thirty packages, does QA
uploads and NMUs, sponsors over forty more) has contributed well, so
listen to pabs if that's your criteria.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
http://peo
ot;still" would have helped get better replies with
relevant references.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi
it is usually and can be requested).
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ supporter, web and LMS developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including develop
ng their
copyrights might be one way to do that.
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (in
aries but does not do so.
So at the moment, I feel I agree with Ansgar Burchardt: modified
versions are a frequent situation for users. So I ask licensors to
explicitly grant permission to distribute only the patches and a link to
the upstream.
This might not have been the intent, but this wo
am source code repository/ies.
* The running application need not check if the source code is
currently on-line (so long as it is usually and can be requested).
But I doubt Oracle will grant additional permissions, so how can the
issue be mitigated?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef),
Paul Wise
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:13 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The Gaviota Engine licence shouldn't apply to the database files. See
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput for a similar topic.
>
> Sounds like they should go to contrib though, due to the n
Varun Hiremath
> The chess tablebase files are generated by the Gaviota Engine whose
> license is clearly not DFSG compatible. However, the author is
> releasing the generated database files under the MIT license. Is the
> MIT license for these database files DFSG compatible? [...]
Yes, MIT/X11
Giulio
> Is there any way to be 100% sure? I am still waiting for a reply
> from upstream on this.
As far as I know, the only way to be 100% sure is for it to be subject
to a precedent-setting court ruling or legislation, but even that will
only provide certainty for one jurisdiction - and it's ge
main" has two meanings:
1. the copyright-lacking sense used already in this thread;
2. publicly available.
I've not seen case law, but I fear that it would be reasonably
possible for someone to convince a court that a holder meant to make a
work available but not permit everythi
Jérémy.
> Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
> on the country you're in. What if that country applies
> laws that violate DFSG ?
>
> Please enlighten me.
Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging?
Short answer: any software in that country is not free software, b
and
what's in the GPL-2 already, so I would accept it, but I'm not 100% sure.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.u
Christoph Mathys
> Upstream has kind of dual licensed the package under GPL and BSD license
> (PKG-INFO says BSD, the implementation file mercurial_keyring.py says GPL).
>
> I contacted upstream and he is willing to change the license to whatever
> is required, but preferable to one of the two
utors. It's shameful and needs a
good clean-up. I'm trying to recover my wiki account, but I may
forget before that process completes, so please feel free to step in.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org suppor
Thomas Goirand
> I would like to package z-push in Debian. It seems to me that it's ok to
> ship it in Debian, but I'm not sure if it's ok to keep the upstream name
> z-push, due to some addition to the AGPL license.
> [...]
> If you want to propagate modified versions of the Program under the na
Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan
> After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is
> really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition
> insufficient for Debian Project.
>
> Am I right?
I don't think so. The DFSG dates from 1997. The Free Software
Definitio
Jonathan McCrohan
> To me, this means that the main figlet package is now DFSG-compliant.
> Would someone else be able to confirm for me that this package is ok to
> move back from non-free to main?
If all the files are now under that licence, I think it is OK.
(crc.c, crc.h, inflate.c, inflate.
Paul Wise
> This is the relevant section of the CC NC licenses:
>
> You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
> above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
> commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of
> the Work for ot
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher)
> Mark Weyer writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> c. The name(s) of all routine(s) in your derived work shall not
> >> include the prefix "iau".
> > Non-free: It effectively forbids using a modified l
Fabian Greffrath
> [Posting this again to debian-legal, as suggested by Jonas. Keeping
> pkg-multimedia and pkg-gstreamer in CC for this initial mail, but
> please keep replying to -legal. Sorry for the inconvenience!]
I'm confused by the above, so I'm keeping all the CCs.
> [...], but accordi
Jérémy Lal
> following npm license is Expat + one restriction,
> is it still DFSG ?
If it just this one addition:
> Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used
> by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software,
> containing modifications that substantially alter,
the risk. This the work of most of my spare time for a long
> time now.
I won't discuss this, but I will note that your intent looks a little
unfair, demanding that others grant you more permissions than you
grant them. Of course, that is your right while you are maintaining
the project, but it
Paul Wise
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:53 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > Is the headline that, in a fit of Not Invented Hear and licence
> > proliferation, Mozilla is planning to phase out the GPL/LGPL
> > tri-licensing?
>
> Please redirect your complaints somewhe
most things under MPL 2.0 can
be combined with a Hello World to convert to a GNU *GPL.
Disappointed,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk
FSGs 1 and 3.
I second the suggestion of Paul Wise: asking for a well-known free
software licence would be worthwhile.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinio
Richard Fontana
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:57:56PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I don't know of anywhere that "Powered by SugarCRM" is a legal notice.
> > Does anyone? What legal effect does it have?
>
> I worked on the drafting of GPLv3 at my previous job (no
"Clark C. Evans"
> Is there a debian-legal position on "Appropriate Legal Notices"
> aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b); OR, alternatively,
> the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License ("CPAL").
>
> I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates
> with with th
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> [GPLv2, section 3] That section only applies if you got a
> written offer. People who use Bittorrent to download (and therefore to
> upload) Debian don't have a written offer, so they can't take advantage of
> that clause. (Debian itself is, as you point out, distributing s
Stefan Hirschmann wrote:
> Short English summary:
> -
> A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a "Abmahnung" [2] to a person which
>downloaded Debian using Bittorrent.
> The company "Media Art Holland b.v" claimed that she has the "Nutzungs
> und Verwertungsrechte" (some
Andrew Harris wrote:
> I am the author of a new Free Software license called the Chicken Dance
> License. It is a BSD-based license that offers extra hilarity over most, if
> not all, other Free Software licenses. This new legal infrastructure that I
> seek to create will result in less hair-pullin
Mark Weyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists? That
> > > seems
> > > quite po
Paul Wise wrote:
> This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have
> rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were
> generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ:
>
> Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do
Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
> It's true that there's no clear definition of the term "source code"
> in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the
> context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for
> quite a long time.
Are you sure it's the most accepted?
Paul Wise wrote:
> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
> source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I think one is deep into langua
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked:
> I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During
> checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps
> and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2].
>
> Can these be shipped in the source and binary package?
>
> [1] http:
Bernhard Reiter asked:
> The following license applies to one cardset included with
> pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to
> me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus
> okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't s
Andrew Ross wrote:
> The full license can be found at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/agpl.php
[...]
> I don't want to mis-represent what Bruno has said, so hopefully he'll
> chime in and expand further if I get anything wrong here. I think the
> following paragraph from Bruno sums up his viewpoin
Bruno Lowagie wrote:
> Please don't avoid the question: does the freedom to hide information
> prevail over the freedom to get information?
You mean like you avoided the question: what is the actual case here?
This list works better when it is discussing actual software which be
considered for d
Modestas Vainius wrote:
> this bug is serious (i.e. the file is not shippable), isn't it? Problematic
> copyright notice is below.
The copyright notice is false (the confidentiality has been broken)
but I see no permission to distribute, so your claim seems correct.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
Ricardo Mones asked:
> I've found a theme which states it's licensed 'Creative Commons by-nc-sa'.
> My question is whether is possible assume the version of the license or
> not (note that my first reaction to this is "this is not a valid license",
> but I'm not sure if my feelings are righ
Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> No comments on this?
I didn't understand what anyone was meant to do with it.
Make it easy to understand what you want
If you want something, come right out and say it. People read so many
emails that they often don't guess at what a cryptic message means,
but del
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Thanks, but please don't do that. If you wish to register a debian.*
> > domain and donate it to the project, please contact
> > hostmas...@debian.org to arrange it.
>
> Actually it is hostmas...@spi-inc.org as SPI is doing this part of
> Domain handling for Debian.
Cool
inkvizitor68sl asked:
> Is it possible to use debian.* domains for websites with documentation
> about Debian (and sometimes - for Ubuntu and some other distros, as
> much of manuals can be used at any distro) ? I mean here some blogs.
> Personal, for this moment, but there will be new authors in n
quim@nokia.com wrote:
> Julian wrote:
> > * Package names contain meego everywhere. According to common
> >believe, they are not subject to trademark restrictions (that's
> >why we had a firefox compatibility package for
> >firefox->iceweasel transition). They are m
Ibrahim Haddad wrote:
> We would ask you to move away from using {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o or any subset of
> those letters or sounds in that order, alone or in combination with other
> letters, words or marks that would tend to cause someone to make a
> reasonable connection of the reference with the MeeG
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Especially this part: "Any person wishing to distribute modifications
> to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original
> developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical
> version.", can it be considered DFSG-free?
It looks like a request n
Stefan Bauer wrote:
> Basically that is true, setkey as part of ipsec-tools is using parts of
> openssl-headers. Howto deal with that? From what i've read is, that if
> the upstream authors are aggree on adding an openssl exeption to there
> license, that would be a solution around this problem. I
philip tricca wrote:
> I've run across a company using the Debian logo slightly modified in a
> way that appears to violate the logo license (at least in my reading of
> it): its use is not in reference to the Debian project. The company
> site can be found here: http://www.catalystcareergroup.
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"
> On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that
> > provided upstream under the same name, there is no license issue; this is
> > nominative use which is not prohibited, regardless of the existence of a
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gustavo Franco wrote:
> >> * Btw, if it was the open logo, we're not talking about software. DFSG
> >> quote about Derived Works states "original software";
> >
> > I
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 00:54:22 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > Let's tackle this from a different angle. What were the ongoing
> > concerns and aren't they solved yet? Who do I need to talk to in order
> > to change the license?
> >
> The DPL.
>
> AFAIK when the logo li
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
> > ## ODC Open Database License (ODbL)
>
> Better late than never, what follows is my own personal analysis of the
> license.
I thank Francesco Poli for this analysis and regret that I do not have
time jus
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Please bear with me if it was discussed here before, I wasn't CC'ed.
Do you want to be? I've guessed yes, but please state explicitly.
Pre-filing discussion is around
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/06/msg00014.html
> Pompee William filled #587668 (The Debian o
markus schnalke asked:
> It's about the package `masqmail'. The upstream release includes an
> MD5 implementation (in src/md5). This MD5 code is the reference
> implementation code from RFC 1321 and RFC 2104.
See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293932#50
which basically recommends
Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:23:16 +0100, MJ Ray
> > If the GPL program links with another library, why does it need ifdefs
> > or configure options? Surely that's left to the library?
>
> Well, the program can check for the presence of libcurl
Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:09:19 +0100, MJ Ray
> > Yavor Doganov wrote:
> >> I see no difference between this scenario and a classic C program that
> >> supports both OpenSSL and GnuTLS via #ifdef's and `configure' options.
> >
>
Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:35:45 +0100, MJ Ray
> > I think the suggestion is that software using python-pycurl would not
> > change if they were using openssl or gnutls. I don't understand how the
> > GPL'd software is derived from openssl
Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:57:24 +0100, Guido Trotter
> > Now, what would be the status of (unmodified) GPL python software which
> > imports pycurl?
>
> According to the FSF licensing team, such software must be under
> GPL+OpenSSL exception.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal
Charles Plessy wrote:
> it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with
> some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty
> disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully
> been used in court by the plaintiff.
He
Guido Trotter wrote:
> According to my understandment:
>
> - OpenSSL is released under a license which is GPL incompatible, unless an
> exception to the GPL is used in the software compiled with it. Debian cannot
> distribute GPL software released under the unmodified GPL and linked against
>
Pompee William wrote:
> According to the DOULL there's no warranty provided for the use of the
> "software" referring to the logo WITHOUT Debian but there's nothing said
> for the logo WITH Debian. Does it assume I may complain to the Debian
> Project for the use of a derivative work from the l
markus schnalke asked:
> [1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2000-09/0392.html
[...]
> I surely do want to give credit. My point is about including 18162
> bytes of license for 262 bytes of straight forward code.
>
> What do you think?
I think the email from Marco is trivial becaus
Thibaut Paumard suggested:
> there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under
> [1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...]
> [1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?
CeCILL Article 5.3.4 states "The Licensee can include a code th
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> > acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
> > thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
>
> This choice-of-ven
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
> >The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
> >discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some
I feel it's some combination of DFSG 5 (discriminating on location)
and DFSG 1 (non-monetary cost of use),
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...]
>
> The problem with this line of argument is that i
Andrew Dalke wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL
> > would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.)
>
> Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also
> included t
Andrew Dalke wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> > I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is,
> > then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was
> > blind.
[...]
> > Read it for yourself, make sure you've go
Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question?
I'm pretty sure that commercial applications in legal use means
something different to commercial software applications, so I'd say
that the act of distribution itself is sometimes a commercial
application.
I'm not aw
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header,
> deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I
> considered those irrelevant for the question at hand.
I think it's probably important to have the disclaimer because some
licens
cate wrote:
> Eugen Dedu wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
> I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
> "any use" doesn't include distribution of software.
> For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributa
Bart Kelsey wrote:
> I may have overstepped a bit in terms of "aggregate". What I'd *like* for
> this license to cover is basically a *project* -- a piece of software, as a
> whole, which makes use of the media in question. There isn't really a need
> to contaminate *other* software with this lic
Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation.
> It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with
> patches and issues.
[...]
> Currently I see only three options:
> 1) upstream decides to open his build system
> 2) we move it to contrib with all c
David Bremner
> The text of BSD-LBNL-License.doc (blech, I know) is as follows
[...]
> The weird parts (as far as I can tell) are
[...]
> - the comment about "commercial use". This does not seem to be
> reflected in the terms of the license.
[...]
> Any comments?
>
> I'm not subscribed t
Peter Dolding wrote: [...]
> In fact the head of Microsoft has said That only Novell and other
> people who have signed agreements is protected. So all the class
> libraries of mono need to move to the restricted section. Hopefully
> this will push the .Net wanting people to get clarification o
Charles Plessy wrote:
> It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that
> licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in
> binary distributions. [...]
I wonder if the licence requirements are the deciding factor. With
the increasing crimin
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:45:00 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > A. DEFINITIONS
> [...]
> > "Original Program" means the original version of the software
> > accompanying this Agreement as released by Recordare LLC, including
> > source code, object code and documentation, if a
"oohay moc." wrote:
> Yes. I don't know much about copyright. But, I would guess that with
> a properly written license, that you would "append" it to a legal
> copyright registration along with the work that the license is
> covering, and send it to the "patent office" of copyrights. [...]
Pleas
1 - 100 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
