If no-one has any more concerns about the letter, should it be sent off now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e930ee.2090...@bitmessage.ch
On 11/08/14 12:14, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
>
>> since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free,
>
> I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free?
>
It's really a matter of semantics, but I would argue t
On 11/08/14 07:26, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
>> [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free,
>> you should use only the MIT license.
>
> Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when?
>
They are
> The question is, in this case, can I "choose" a license to be MIT
> or the "and" word glues these two licenses together ?
Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use
both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you
should use only the MIT license.
On 03/08/14 15:01, Jonathan Paugh wrote:
>
> On 03/08/2014 09:48 PM, Georg Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Dear Sirs,
>>
>> the german trennmuster project [1] provides a LaTeX package
>> de-hyph-exptl wich is part of the debian texlive-lang-german
>> package. The core component is a long list of german words a
On 02/08/14 16:30, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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 "Ze
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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
Last minute concerns:
The warranty disclaimer states that the software is provided by the PHP
development team. What if it isn't? Do people that are not members of
the PHP development team have the right to make that claim on their behalf?
Similarly, the license includes the phrase "This software
On 31/07/14 10:54, Walter Landry wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>> Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style?
>>
>> No, this is completely infeasible
>
> That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because
> the license has an upgrade clause (condition
> Hi all,
>
> Is it possible we can then work towards a resolution on this near decade
> old problem?
>
> Now we've established that the PHP License v3.01 resolves the problem
> outlined in the 2005 email, surely the PHP License can be removed from
> the "Serious violations" list on the Debian FT
On 30/07/14 21:07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> As Rasmus, and I, said numerous times, the PHP License is a perfectly
>> valid choice as long as the software are distributed under *.php.net.
>
> This reading clearly fails DFSG#3 and OSD#3 at the very least, and makes
> *all* s
> You're advocating a position, then, that the PHP license can require
> recipients to make false, and even nonsensical, claims, and that this is
> not a problem to be addressed by improving the license terms.
I think that this is similar to the BSD licenses. Look at
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD
On 30/07/14 10:21, Ben Finney wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf writes:
>
>> I see absolutely no problem with PHP projects distributed from
>> *.php.net carrying the PHP license. The license talks about "PHP
>> Software" which we define as software you get from/via *.php.net.
>
> Specifically, the license
>> I am currently packaging GMastermind, and I have run into a licensing issue.
>>
>> In the package, every source file that has a license header is released
>> under GPL-2, with the "or, at your option, any later version" statement.
>>
>> However, some files don't have license headers, and the REA
Hello debian-legal!
I am currently packaging GMastermind, and I have run into a licensing issue.
In the package, every source file that has a license header is released
under GPL-2, with the "or, at your option, any later version" statement.
However, some files don't have license headers, and th
> What about LGPL-2.1?
I think that it is compatible. Section 6 explains situations in which
you can combine with other licenses. If you combine it with a work using
other licenses, those licenses must allow modification and reverse
engineering (which it seems the EPL does).
However, it would app
On 21/05/14 22:22, Turkey Breast wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've made a Bitcoin library, and am seeking inclusion into Debian. We (me and
> the mentor) are seeking guidance going forwards over a license issue.
>
> The basic issue is that this project uses an AGPL license with several
> additions, which w
> Also, could you suggest a DEP-5 shortname? Of course any string will
> do (unless it's a reserved name) but I'd prefer something that helps
> to identify the actual license.
It looks similar to the Historic Permission Notice and Disclaimer
(HNPD). See: https://www.spdx.org/licenses/HPND
--
To
>> So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
>> AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others
>> only require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_
>> changes the code for that frontend?
>>
>> Not if Debian makes changes to both the f
> So please excuse my ignorance here: But how does that work? How can we,
> as Debian, ensure that a user automatically complies with the license
> when a package is installed and spawns up a service on a port? (Or
> similarly, installs itself into a web server found on the system.)
I don't think
> Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source
> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd
> software.
I don't think that this is the case. Firstly, because it leaves a
practical loophole in the AGPL:
-Person A takes some software under the AGPL.
-Person A priv
> Does that mean that people calling one of these from a script or a web
> service (e.g. invoices using texlive-bin) will need to adhere to the
> AGPL as well?
It depends how it is being used. If a program incorporates AGPL code,
then it, as a whole, must also be licensed under the AGPL.
However,
> Similarly, debian/copyright is a best-effort summary of copyright
> holders, but if you actually want to track down the complete set of
> copyright holders for relicensing or whatever, the conservative
> assumption should be that you should use all available public
> information (revision control
On 05/05/14 11:18, Simon Fondrie-Teitler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on packaging pypump, which is licensed under the GPL-3. The
> package reviewer noticed it requires python-openssl to function. Does
> this mean that pypump needs an OpenSSL exception in order to be included
> in Debian?
>
> Tha
> | Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
> | information and distribution license in the file
> | /usr/share/doc/package/copyright.
>
> If you make a *change*, then it is not a *verbatim* copy any more.
| In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstrea
> I still didn't get the problem. What is the copyright year for? What is
> the difference if a software is (c) 1999 or (c) 2014?
All copyrighted materials enter the public domain after a certain number
of years. To be able to work out whether something is in the public
domain, the year has to be
> The upstream of the getmail writes this as his original code without
> making copyright assignment to FSF. He is the licensor and not the
> licensee. Thus, he is not bound by the quoted GPL2 license terms at
> all.
Agreed.
> This is exactly the reason why I as the licensee must not change the
Before responding to the previous points, I'd just like to note
something. GPL2 states that you must
"conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
that refer to this License and to the absence of any wa
On 19/04/14 20:36, Paul Gevers wrote:
> We don't even use the file (it is removed in clean target and will
> be stripped from source in my next upload), but I like to convince
> upstream as well. Do they have a problem distributing this file?
Yes, I think that they do have a problem. *Unless* they
On 19/04/14 20:06, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Well, I think the license stated in my original e-mail covers all
> files in Novell SDK releases as in the release I looked into there
> is a file SDK_README.html that reads at the bottom: """All files
> provided in this release are subject to the Novell Deve
On 19/04/14 17:52, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Debian-legal readers [Please CC the Pascal list on reply]
>
> I believe that I (well Lintian to be honest) found a file [1] in fpc
> that is not distributable.
Some more problems:
* Developer Products may not "substantially duplicate the
capabilities or
> * James Cloos:
>
>>> "NS" == Nico Schlömer writes:
>>
>> NS> I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer.
>>
>> Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US
>> federal government employees as part of their work cannot have
>> copyright; they are al
With Secondary
Licenses" option.
On 15/03/14 08:50, Riley Baird wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to convince an upstream maintainer to add a GPL exception to
> their program that links to OpenSSL. They have been cooperative, but
> they don't want to have long license text i
commending that.
However, I was unable to find out whether it would require an OpenSSL
exemption. Looking at the license, I don't think that one is needed, but
I'd just like to make sure.
Thanks for helping!
Riley Baird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.o
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> That is your belief. I could release content (textures and level
> geometry) that I have been creating for my game right now, and it could
> be used by at least 6 other game engines, and a variety of utility
> programs.
The
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> "Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
> > about here is based on numerous conversati
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people to be
> able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed audio or video
Says who? You have to distribute the it in a form that's ready for
e
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about here
is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the "IP" (sic)
field.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> How do you define an entire work?
I've been told repeatedly that
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
L
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
> someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
> for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the GPL.
>
I too have heard people
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there seem to
> be quite a lot of games that have a different license for the engine
> and the game data, and the combination of GPL and CC-by-sa seems to be
> getting
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged". Thus if the game code or any dependencies (ie, the engine) are
li
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
> the
> binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is
> a
> rectriction?
I think at this point we're all clear on the t
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose the following scenario:
>
> Someone gives you a CD with debian, and you install the weblog tool,
> which happens to be agpl.
> Your internet connection is two way satalite, 500mb/month, data both
> directions costs, a
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One's modification and distribution over a network of that software,
> > let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than
> > the cost of providing th
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual
> channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network
> server to indicate those other ways.
The license does not require
I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project.
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are
arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's
"freedom" to exploit the ASP loophole.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
> (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
> distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at
> any time that
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080902 11:23]:
> > In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software
> > are granted the four software freedoms.
>
> It
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it were just "running on your server", there would be no distribution
> requirement. But it is running on your server and sending and receiving
> data from the user, which is different.
This is the core of the issue.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, but they'll have your IP, which is (at least in my country)
> personal information. In any case it is enough for someone to be able
> to find you, so you won't be really anonymous. Think about China, for
> example
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my
> personal concerns. Say I want to create a 3D virtual world based on
> the IRC network, using PySoy as the base framework for that, PySoy
> being AGPLv3 will f
This thread has slipped into absurdity.
These fringe cases with the viewpoint that free software copyright holders
are just biting at the bit to take people to court retroactively for
short-term lack of compliance at no fault of the software modifier.
The GPL could be abused by a copyright holder
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/30 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Just host the source code at Savannah or any other similar service.
>
> How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code?
These are technical challenges, not legal
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM, David Martínez Martí <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then, if I download it, and I made some modifications at the source code,
> the AGPL (under certain conditions) will bind me to publish the source code.
Note that the "(under certain conditions)" is offering remo
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> It says that I must offer "an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
> Source of [my] version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
> from a network server at no charge".
> There's no indication that I can dela
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> The problem is:
> what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon
> (or for one night, for a couple of days, for a week, ..., forever)?
>
> Am I failing to comply with the AfferoGPLv3, unless I immediately shut
> t
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced
> distribution of source code is "a desirable effect", but it's
> distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable Launchpad webapp?
PySoy.
We are distributed via
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:08 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous if it has
> loopholes (like hosting on third-party cost-free VCSes, perhaps), but
> it's not yet clear exactly what those are.
It's not a loophole, it's the expectation.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The "problem" with the AGPLv3 is that you can argue the distribution
> requirement is onerous. It may be a bit more onerous for a dissident
Since anyone can get a free, anonymous account at any number of free VCS
so
se, and
maintaining our packages via PPA is less work not to mention sans being put
in the proprietary software repository.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Miriam Ruiz writes ("Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?"):
> > 2008/8/25 Arc Riley &l
It would seem as consensus has been reached.
Once confirmed, someone should update
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is
confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be
considered
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> This is an appeal to authority: who drafted the license terms, and who
> has okayed them, doesn't have any impact on the facts about the
> effects of the license terms on a work. We're trying to determine
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, there is an very important difference. The GPL ensures that everyone
> is allowed all the things they would be if there was no license at all.
That is not true. There are countless public domain works which the s
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A new question has come to my mind: What would happen if you run an
> AGPLv3 program that was modified by someone else.
I asked an identical question a few months ago. I'll try to explain it as
it was explained to me;
C
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is not the case. You are not required by the AGPLv3 section 13 to
> > ensure the code is made available to anyone unless you have modified the
> > code *and* you're allowing remote users to use that modified v
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David Martínez Martí <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with this license is, that anyone that tries to use and/or
> modify it must distribute it to third parties. I don't think that can be
> free.
This is not the case. You are not required by the AGPLv3
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> The situation is different with AfferoGPLv3 section 13, where just
> using a modified version of the work forces you to convey the
> Corresponding Source, from the same server (which could just be from
> impractical to imp
Sorry for any etiquette foobars I may have made, I wrote that email in a bit
of a hurry this morning.
So I still don't understand the original claim that connecting a 3d IM
> client to an AGPLv3'd GTalk server would allow Google to obtain the
> source of the client. Anyone?
When the client per
To cut down on number of emails, I'm replying to both Miriam and Francesco
below:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> But there's a significant difference in reliability when the
> Corresponding Source is hosted on the *same* server where the
> AfferoGPLv3'
You're taking quite a few steps forward on logic here, let's rewind a bit.
I'm not sure that that's the case, but that seems like a pretty clear
> contamination of unrelated software, which would break DFSG 9.
It does not change the license of that software in other uses, it only
applies the te
Greets. It's been awhile since I unsubscribed to this list, so a quick
introduction is that I'm the maintainer of the PySoy project, the game
engine being discussed here.
There are two issues being discussed, one is what the AGPLv3 means, and
another on how it applies to PySoy. I'll only address
Has anyone looked at Disney's "Panda3d Public License Version 2.0"?
http://www.panda3d.org/license.php
Clause 4 seems worrysome (requires sending signifigant changes to Disney).
Other parts seem redundant with copyright law.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:09:39AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>
> Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That
> doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with
> a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has
> been infringing
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >
> > The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over
> > it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where
> > those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it "this is free
> > because it's GPL" hu
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:26:56PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote:
>
> Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian?
> For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging).
>
> Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial
> package, and we would like yo
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:33:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
> noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
> (My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
> his name to i
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> >
> > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
> >
> > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
>
> I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> und
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
