Hi everyone,
the request to stop redistributing Debian in Germany sparked an
interesting conversation in identi.ca:
http://identi.ca/conversation/69498913
In that conversation Bradley Kuhn said:
bkuhn @vinzv, Please note: *technically speaking*, !Debian
project itself violates
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on
this message, please GPG-sign your reply.
GPG key not at hand, sorry.
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Hi guys,
please keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc:
I'm seeking the opinion of -legal regarding an issue I've been
discussing on another mailing list. It pertains the YAST license as
found in:
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast
To make this clear from the start:
Hi,
In the neverending saga of copyright reading for the purposes of the
new maintainer process I found this in c2man:
| This version of c2man is copyright, but may be freely redistributed
| and modified so long as:
|
| 1. The names of all contributing authors remain on the documentation,
Hi people,
I'm rehashing an old subject mostly because I'd like to save Branden
trouble in the near future (how kind of me... nah).
Back in June 2000, James Treacy asked about the SGI Free Software
License B. Go look at the archives if you are interested in the whole
discussion. One of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, under
Parentheses indicate the way I'm parsing this. Am I wrong? This
concerns to copyright notices, right?
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's this I hear about MP3-decoding (as opposed to encoding) being
patented and Fraunhofer [...]
He claims to have a patent, but as far as I know nobody has ever seen
a patent number so things are a bit vague.
It. Fraunhofer is an
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But does it cover decoding? From everything I've heard, it only covers
encoding, and Fraunhofer is making idle threats about decoding.
Since the whole system moved to Delphion, it's a PITA to actually read
patents and patents' claims. From what I
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:16:53PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner
on the components of a derived or compiled work in order
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
There's what they claim is the MIT X11 license, which doesn't match the
X11 license on xfree86.org's website. I choose to call that the GNU X11
license to make it clear what I'm talking about.
This is the MIT X11 license:
: Copyright 1989 by
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner
on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that
the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms.
I don't understand, can you elaborate
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[blah blah blah]
Thomas, two days ago you were ranting about off-topic posts on this
list. During those two days you have been the largest source of
off-topic posts on this list. Why you want this argument on public
record is beyond me. If
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The proper interpretation of this area of the GPL is not on topic for
this mailing list.
There's an annoying trend here: if Chloe posts it it's off topic. It
someone else does it, it's suddenly on topic? Please make up your
mind. If you
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Copyright law is not concerned about that, and the question if
something is a derived work from something else has nothing to do
with the specific details of an abstract idea like an interface, only
with the fine details on its implementation,
Viral [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
archives, not even non-US.
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
IIRC your questions are addressed there.
--
Marcelo | Mustrum Ridcully did a lot for rare
Hakan Ardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have any of you tried to contact the upstream athor James Ashton?
Otherwise I will. I do have a uptodate address to him that I digged
up over another copyrigh issue last year. (That reply of his in the
copyrigh file).
Please do.
Thanks,
--
Hi,
in a mail exchange with one of my applicants, he asked me about the
license of libcompface. Basically, from libcompface's readme, it's
this:
| Compface - 48x48x1 image compression and decompression
| Copyright (c) James Ashton 1990.
| Written 89/11/11
|
| Feel free to distribute
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems obvious to me. Is there some reason you have for reading it
another way?
[1 ysabell:~] grep-available -s Package,Filename -P libcompface
Package: libcompfaceg1
Filename: dists/woody/main/binary-i386/libs/libcompfaceg1_1989.11.11-17.4.deb
Brian Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| * Written 11th November 1889.
However I don't think you can copyright something you created in
1889 :)
Ah, that explains it! It's on the public domain now. I reckon this was
a great hacker, writing a program for a language, compiler and
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The SGI Free SW license B version 1.1 can be found at
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB
Only in M$ Word and PostScript formats. The PostScript seems to
kill ghostscript, so it's hard to comment
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Due the complicated nature of part of the GLU library in mesa, the
authors are considering switching to using the version distributed
by SGI. The question has arisen as to whether the SGI Free SW
license B is compatable with the DFSG.
Just in
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attached is a text version converted using mswordview,
It looks mostly OK to me at first read.
Would it be worth to contact SGI and ask for clarifications?
And on the hardware implementation
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public
License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'?
Both are possible, and it is conceivable that RMS liked the ambiguity
whan he picked the term.
Hmmm...
Does the
Hi,
my apologies about the offtopic, but I hope someone on the list can
help me with this.
What does 'General Public License' mean? Is it 'General' + 'Public
License' or is it 'General Public' + 'License'? I think the name in
English for those things is, respectively, Noun Phrase and
Hi Jesus,
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
The main problem here (in my opinion) is that we cannot
distribute a program under a new license. Only the author can. And
translating a license is making a new license...
Our current problem is a
[ Don't Cc: me, I'm on -legal. ]
Hi,
this is the best place I can think of to ask this question ...
I have read several times that some countries don't accept legal
documents (such as licenses, please correct me if a license doesn't
fall into this category) in languages other than their
Hi,
attached is a copy of IBM PUBLIC LICENSE, extracted from the just
released Data Explorer 4.0 source. I don't know if this is the same as
Jike's license, but I catched my eye that Freshmeat lists this thing as
OpenSource. I have read this, and all I can say right now is this is
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 07:22:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
You may not charge a fee for the sole service of
providing access to and/or use of the OC via a network (e.g. the
Internet), whether it be via the world wide web, FTP, or any other
method.
This is non-free.
The clause
:
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 12:10:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
OpenContent License (OPL)
Version 1.0, July 14, 1998.
Hm. This is just a guess, but my guess is that this hasn't been run
through a lawyer. The language is fairly imprecise in places, and there
are grammatical
Hi,
subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that
I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL? The _text_ of the OPL says
OpenContent License, not OpenContent Public License.
If the answer is yes,
a) can it be added to the DFSG as a DFSG-ok license? How does one
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 06:42:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?...
Post it to the list and let us have a look.
Ok.
Marcelo
OpenContent
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 05:14:01PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that
I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL? The _text_ of the OPL says
OpenContent License, not OpenContent
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 12:44:00AM -, Darren Benham wrote:
So, am I correct? If so what path should I take to:
1. make a legal temp. solution,
Nothing could temporarily get it into main.
Agreed.
2. maybe fix the problem?
Get the authors to change the copyright or replace the
This is a non-sensical thread that refuses to die on the XL or Beowulf
list... it's just interesting to note s/o at RH is also talking with Troll.
Marcelo---BeginMessage---
Oleg,
I am actively talking to the Troll Tech folks and others about all
these issues.
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 10:45:19AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 07:49:09AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
This is a non-sensical thread that refuses to die on the XL or Beowulf
list... it's just interesting to note s/o at RH is also talking with Troll.
Why
35 matches
Mail list logo
