On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 2:06 AM Axel Beckert wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > There appears to be some question of opinion
>
> Not opinion. Just the point of what the meaning of _text colors_
> *rollingeyes* in a license do mean. I just ignored them and then those
> two licenses differ
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:03 PM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Fontana writes:
>
> Richard> I'm curious if there are opinions on why "must retain the
> Richard> above copyright notice immediately at the beginning
Greetings debian-legal!
I understand Debian includes the package libbsd in Debian main. This
package includes a man page with the following license (see
https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/pkgs/libbsd.git/tree/debian/copyright#n214)
License: BSD-5-clause-Peter-Wemm
Redistribution and use in sour
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:25 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
>
> I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that they have
> dealt with this problem too and concluded that these licenses were
> int
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:36 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > Is it necessary that an open source license must allow porting to
> > proprietary systems? I don't think so today. But based on what I
> > found out about the OpenMotif license, people actually thought that
> > back then. This surpr
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:14:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Mihai Moldovan writes:
>
> > While working on a package (not yet part of Debian), I noticed the following
> > copyright and license notice:
>
> Thank you for posting the full text of the grant of license.
>
> > # This copyrighted mat
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:28:46 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> >
> > > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the c
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On the other hand, when a larger upstream project
> granted us a linking exception for OpenSSL, they probably did not
> obtain consent from all the copyright holders, either.
Right. For example, I remember one case where a Debian de
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
> program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
> to be used along with OpenSSL, when they where the ones implementing
>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:49:04AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a
> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is
> considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies
> t
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 06:56:13PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've bumped into an interesting thing: python-jsmin claims to be a
> Python rewrite of jsmin, but it's not clear if it's infected by Douglas
> Crockford's "evilness" or not? It's in Debian currently, but look here:
>
> h
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:29:28PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:07:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of
> > LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL'
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:25:08PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Also keep in mind GPLv3+ and LGPLv2.1 (hard) are not compatable.
Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of
LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of
LGPLv2.x (even though its
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:05:42PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> This is why the Free Software Foundation makes efforts to produce a
> *General* Public License; one which can be generally applied to software
> works, instead of inflating the number of incompatible licenses out there.
Tangent: 'GPL' w
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > > > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
> > > > about the b
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
> > about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk
> > at DebConf10 in NYC, Bradley said the AGPL was specifically based on
> > modificat
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:20:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I don't believe I have spread any FUD.
>
[...]
> 2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (http://www.apache.org/
> licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)
Only in the same sense that GPL or LGPL (any version) is incompatible
with a
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 08:20:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Can you remember what arguments support the idea that "Powered by
> SugarCRM" is an author attribution?
>
> Especially in cases like this, I think the man on the Clapham omnibus
> would probably assume it referred to the running software, ra
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:43:33PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 at 16:47:33 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> > the question for me is
> > if "Powered By SugarCRM" is a reasonable author attribution.
>
> No, I don't think it is.
>
> "Copyright © 2011 John Doe" and "Copyright ©
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:57:56PM +, 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 tomatoes,
please :). You may note that section 7 of (A)GPLv3 say
Ben Finney wrote:
> Sadly, checking the released version of GPLv3, I see that the sections
> "15. Disclaimer of Warranty." and "16. Limitation of Liability." both
> contain all text in SHOUTY CAPITALS.
>
> That's disappointing :-( I wasn't aware they'd been reverted from
> readable text. It must h
21 matches
Mail list logo
