On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:51:52 +0200
Jan Luca Naumann wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I want to package the tool sedutil
> (https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil).
>
> When writing the debian/copyright file I found a possible file that
> could be problematic to be used together with GPL-3 code:
> htt
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:58:24 +0100
Sven Bartscher wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:22:09 +1100
> Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > > I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is this
> > > right?
> >
> > It's impossible to tel
> I think this isn't sufficient to include the package in Debian. Is this
> right?
It's impossible to tell if we can't see the package ourselves.
pgpyHMRf6zWY6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0100 (CET)
Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote:
>
> >> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to
> >> clarify their Copyright.
> >
> > I know you were ask
What enforcement actions can you possibly see arising from this?
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:16:43 -0500
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> So who bears the exposure to litigation or
> enforcement actions?
> -tony
>
> On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
> > I know you were asking
> > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
> > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment.
> >
> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to
> clarify their Copyright.
I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth t
> One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit
> permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under
> the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3.
I think that you're misinterpreting DFSG §3. A user needs the right to
distribute the work such that the people
> >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new
> >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
> >>
> >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that
> >> the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant.
That licence is fine.
pgpAVpU96_Kgu
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:54:07 -0500
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> That should read, of course, defendants.
>
> On 2016-03-09 10:53 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> > So in a cause of action against Debian for
> > infringement, who are the plaintiffs?
>
Depends. But we're concerned about people who redistri
> * Gregory M. Christy grants license under equivalent of BSD 4-clause
> with advertising requirement.
This Gregory Christy looks promising:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregory-christy-5b08a134
> * The Australian National University grants license under equivalent
> of BSD 4-c
> When writing the file, a line caught my attention, because it mentions
> that the license is "personal" and "non-exclusive":
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-osg/pkg-osg.git/tree/debian/copyright?h=debian-osg-3.2&id=0e3adbf30d2b1b02710513ac22c9711f5e9d8cad#n417
This isn't a problem, sinc
> > For one thing, there is the problem of license proliferation.
>
> Yes that is certainly a problem; though there are some attempts to
> mitigate these issues:
> * it can be used together with any other OSS compatible license.
For copyleft licenses, it can't, because those licenses would also
're ever going to actually enforce the license. If
you don't plan on enforcing it, then it is worthless.
Before you do get legal advice, however, there are some DFSG problems
with this license. If you're still interested in making this license,
let me know and I'll tell you the
> > //3. Users agree to obey all government restrictions governing
> > //redistribution or export of the software.
>
> This is an additional restriction on top of what is allowed by GPLv2+.
> That, unfortunately, makes it incompatible.
That sounds sensible, but are you sure?. Red Hat includes suc
Package: armory
Version: 0.92.3-1+b1
Severity: normal
Upon starting armory from the CLI, I get a notice which requires me to tick a
box saying "I agree to all the terms of the license above" before I can use the
software. This is annoying, because a wonderful part of using Debian is not
having to
> > Your downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, distributing or use
> > of any software, documentation, and/or data from CISST (collectively,
> > the "Software") constitutes acceptance of all of the terms and
> > conditions of this Agreement. If you do not agree to such terms and
> > conditio
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:58:49 +0530
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I was to make a tool for general purpose, to help others, and ensure
> freedom is guaranteed, I'd go with [A]GPL. If I want to make a
> commercial product, I would go and opt for a proprietary license.
>
> Now I see a reas
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:06:25 +0100
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:52 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> [...]
> > But even if the person who wrote a program wrote it in such a way that
> > it was unreasonably difficult to understand (something which is very
&
> > Being insecure shouldn't be a reason for a program to be declared
> > non-free, but being unreasonably difficult to understand should be.
>
> Not if the program is difficult to understand even for its
> maintainers...
A program will never be *unreasonably* difficult to understand for its
main
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> [...]
> > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore.
>
> I don't think so.
Why not? "The preferred form of modificati
> > > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of
> > > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making
> > > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual
> > > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the
> > > existing one
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:23:50 -0200
Eriberto Mota wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree).
>
> When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full
> revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me.
>
> The
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:05:39 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Riley Baird
> writes:
>
> > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too.
> > We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically
> > all cases, even if we can'
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:26:47 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Riley Baird
> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
> > > should *no longer* be r
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> > > source and what not
> >
> > This question comes up in so
> What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> source and what not
This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a
definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move
on.
I can think of several ideas:
1. Source code must not
> IMHO it is a DFSG-compatible license because added clause is not a
> restriction for field of endeavour but a termination clause similar to GPL
> ones except that is is explicitly added to the license in order to blacklist
> a known offender.
Are you sure that Adarsh Mehta is a known offender
> But do we need to be pedantic about upstream pdf files?
>
> Our petsc distribution would be in principle be improved if we were to
> include the pdf manuals.
Yeah, I completely understand. Especially seeing as we now have things
like libreoffice-pdfimport. But the FTP masters have specifically
> In one of the packages I am currently working on (idlastro [1]), some
> files have the following license [2]:
>
> | Copyright 1992, The Regents of the University of California. This
> | software was produced under U.S. Government contract (W-7405-ENG-36)
> | by Los Alamos National Laboratory, wh
> I am creating a video streaming platform using the Raspberry Pi. I have
> wrote software that captures video and streams it to a server using OpenCV.
> The client then can monitor the video feed using a computer, or smartphone.
> OpenCV uses the FreeBSD license, and my code is running on Raspbian
> > Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
> > said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't
> > allow this option.
>
> I must admit that I missed it so far that the file is (nearly
> equivalent) in fpc. I found the following quote on the upstream li
> > > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > > > > > > -not be charged seperatly.
> > >
> > > The t
> > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > > > > -not be charged seperatly.
> > > >
> > > > But a developer d
> > I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to
> > someone else,
> I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the
> copyright owner.
That's what I meant; I probably didn't word it clearly, though.
pgp4w78cg1zYD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel González wrote:
> On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
> >>>> Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
> >> Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
> >> say...
>
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
>
> > > Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
>
> Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
> say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the
second license
> > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > -not be charged seperatly.
>
> This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the fil
> > > If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
> > > with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
> > > file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
> > > terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every
> > I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> > packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> > directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> > Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
> > Bertin) an
> I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
> Bertin) and released
> > Given that the license restricts redistribution, does it prohibit packaging
> > gpuocelot even in non-free? If so, what is the correct way to record that
> > in the gpuocelot RFP [1] (a wontfix tag?).
>
> Yes, Debian cannot distribut it in non-free or elsewhere.
I remember reading somewhere
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:07:14 +0100
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 14/04/15 19:25, Anton Gladky wrote:
> > STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a [...]
> > revocable, [...] license
>
> As far as I can see, ST can revoke this license at any time, i.e. they
> can say "no, we don't want to allow that any
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:20:34 +0200
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> > [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable
> > restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and
> > obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force
> > Debian to adopt a licensi
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200
Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
>
> >> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
> >> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
> >
> > Yes, it is. The trade
> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code
> and then redistribute.
> >>>
> >>> He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit
> >>> the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly
> >>> opposed to the goals of t
> > They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
> > licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
> > it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
> > code.
>
> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:04:36 +0100
Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>
> > Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>
> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
> limitation?
The DD would not be
> Or they could keep the files from Nokia under LGPL2.1, and use
> GPL3+openssl exception for the rest of the files. Given that they have
> proper headers, I don't see a problem with that, although I would
> mention that in the readme.
But what license would the work as a whole be distributed a
ere: https://github.com/operatornormal/classified_ads/
and the Nokia-licensed files are here:
https://github.com/operatornormal/classified_ads/tree/master/textedit
Yours thankfully,
Riley Baird
pgplDAUTF5zTV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> * Copyright law may categorically exclude the work. This is often the
> case if the work was produced by the USA government, but not always.
Kind of unrelated, but I just thought that I should point out that this is only
the case for Americans. The USA government claims copyright on their doc
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:37:20 +
lumin wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 17:27 +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
> >
> > If you're cherry-picking, I'd say that it would probably be fine.
> > Copying full pages, probably not. If you tell us what package it is, it
> There are many quotes/paragraphs from famous people on wikiquote.org,
> and I'd like to cherry-pick some of those content
> (they are distributed under CC-BY SA 3.0)
> into the package I am maintaining.
>
> At first I thought ignoring the license issue is ok,
> as the content I chose is *definite
ent?
Finally, some notes:
-People on debian-legal do not have the power to change the DFSG. Such a change
would require a constitutional amendment.
-You can still get a package into non-free even if it doesn't meet the DFSG
-Good luck with your project
Riley Baird
pgp8nTV3L_fC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:18:46 -0800
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches"):
> > > There's no real difference between a message with a disclaimer, and
> > > one without.
> >
> > I think this depends on the tex
Generally, this would be a problem. You should ask the person to
explicitly state that the disclaimer does not apply.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:18:35 +0100
Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> every now and then I receive submissions (i.e. patches) by e-mail for
> packages I maintain. Sometimes a di
On 06/02/15 01:26, Paul Wise wrote:
> The other README files also mention the GPL but I can't read Japanese:
I can read Japanese, and it doesn't specify a version.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@list
On 06/02/15 03:30, Eriberto wrote:
> IMHO you can use GPL-2, considering 1999-2002 (or nearly) as upstream date.
Also, if no version of the GPL is specified, you are free to choose any
version. From section 9 of the GPL-2:
"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
may
> a quick search trough the other source packages in Debian shows that this file
> is present in many of them.
>
> http://codesearch.debian.net/results/file%20file%20be%20copied/
>
> Therefore, empirically it is DFSG-free. My impression about this license is
> that it might be intended as a joke
OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
For the sake of Debian, would you be willing to relicense (or dual
license) this file under the above license?
Yours thankfully,
Riley Baird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
actual code is *not* freely available.
I found this license while I was writing the d/copyright for the
"granule" package[1], but it's also in the gtk+2.0 package[2].
Yours thankfully,
Riley Baird
[1] http://sources.debian.net/src/granule/1.4.0-7-2/po/Makefile.
> Can I claim to be using it under v3.0 and include it in a Debian package
> without conflict?
Yes.
--
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/54cbd9ac.2080...@
On 25/01/15 15:54, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I came across a curiosity while updating the wine package today. I
>> noticed that upstream wine generates one of their source files from
>> the contents of RFC3454 [0].
>>
>> There is
On 25/01/15 15:36, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across a curiosity while updating the wine package today. I
> noticed that upstream wine generates one of their source files from
> the contents of RFC3454 [0].
>
> There is a tool (tools/make_unicode) that among other things downloads
>
On 19/01/15 01:22, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2015-01-18 12:23, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
>> On 2015-01-18 12:16, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
>>> Upstream has been contacted. So far they seem to think, that
>>> this is a Debian internal issue and don't want to add anything
>>> to their license (GPL-
> My conclusion is that if you have a GPL program importing the "ssl"
> module, you can ignore the licensing issue on either the ground
> that nobody really cares or the fact that OpenSSL should be
> considered as a system library (and this is easier with GPLv3 than
> it was with GPLv2).
You mig
On 18/01/15 09:34, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2015-01-18 07:39, Riley Baird wrote:
>> If you could make a version of python-requests with the OpenSSL parts
>> removed, then yes. Otherwise, no.
>
> If one imports requests from Debian, OpenSSL is used.
> No idea how to p
On 18/01/15 05:14, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, if this question has been discussed before.
> So far, I could not find a conclusive answer.
> Please Cc me.
>
> Python program or library "X" is licensed under GPL3+ without
> OpenSSL exception. "X" does use the python-requests library,
Hi,
There has been some discussion on the debian-mentors list about
copyright and we'd like to get advice from debian-legal.
The original message (not written by me) is below.
Yours thankfully,
Riley Baird
Hello!
I personally use fbpdf pdf-viewer. I packaged it for myself,
but I
>> * There's a newer upstream version
>
> The package contains the HEAD of the master branch from a few hours
> ago since upstream just committed some new changes. There is
> technically no newer version. What upstream branched/tagged as 1.2.2
> is 1.2.1 + a cherry pick of 1 commit but due to the
There is no restriction on the distribution of the software, so it can
go in non-free.
On 21/11/14 09:42, Yann Dirson wrote:
> The license for Bonanza (top-level shogi computer player) is clearly
> non-free because of the "non-commercial" clause. Aside from that, my
> interpretation is this could
On 14/11/14 19:19, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>> I am not aware of any update on the matter: I suppose the determination
>> of the effective licenses of binary packages is still something to be
>> done manually.
>>
>> I hope this answers Ole's question, although maybe in a disap
>> however the binary license may differ -- f.e. when a BSD source is
>> linked to a GPL library. Also there is usually more than one license
>> used in the sources.
>
> Right, so the source package should have a ‘debian/copyright’ which
> specifies copyright information for all binary packages ge
> How is the license of a binary Debian package determined?
>
> The file debian/copyright only contains the license of the sources;
> however the binary license may differ -- f.e. when a BSD source is
> linked to a GPL library. Also there is usually more than one license
> used in the sources.
I'
On 12/11/14 17:13, Riley Baird wrote:
>> You're welcome and good luck with your persuading effort!
>
> I've brought up the topic here:
> http://www.yabbforum.com/cgi-bin/community/YaBB.pl?num=1415772639/0
>
> We'll see how the topic goes.
Success! YaBB s
> You're welcome and good luck with your persuading effort!
I've brought up the topic here:
http://www.yabbforum.com/cgi-bin/community/YaBB.pl?num=1415772639/0
We'll see how the topic goes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
>> It would likely cost a few thousands of dollars to purchase a
>> better license for the music, so that's the reason for the
>> license.
>
> I sincerely doubt that a game must necessarily be considered an
> adaption of its background music – since usually, game and music
> are very loosely coupl
one please make
sure that I haven't missed any?
You can find an unmodified copy of the license in the following link,
but you'll need to save it as a html file:
http://sourceforge.net/p/yabb/svn/HEAD/tree/trunk/cgi-bin/yabb2/license.txt
Thanks,
Riley Baird
License - YaBB Publ
On 30/10/14 08:13, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Facebook has published what seems a nice piece of code called osquery
> under a BSD3 license [1] [2] [3]. I was surprised by an "Additional
> Grant of Patent Rights" document that says the following [4]:
>
>
> Additional Grant of Patent Rights
>
>
> But Fedora, whose policies Richard Fontana helped to shape over the
> years, considers OpenSSL to be a library covered by the system library
> exception.
Afaict, Fedora does not consider every package that they offer to be
part of the operating system, whereas Debian does.
> In practice, the FS
On 16/10/14 20:40, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> On 16 October 2014 01:56, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Another possibility would be to have the program download the logo
>> itself from the Bing website somewhere, along with the Bing map data,
>> when the Bing option is used, but such a thing o
> we are discussing whether or not the bing logo image [1] should be shipped
> with
> the "jmapviewer" package in main.
>
> I as the package author originally thought that we should not advertise
> bing, but Sebastiaan from debian-gis argues that we violated MS terms of
> use by not including it
>> Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective
>> divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients
>> operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable —
In addition to what Ian said, Debian already accepts Public Domain
software, even though public
advertise - Debian systems, so there must be an easier way.
Thanks!
Riley Baird
--
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/542c7b54.9090...@bitmessage.ch
On 15/09/14 06:55, Vinay Sajip at Red Dove wrote:
>>> 3. The Python standard library logging module is covered by the Python
>>> license, so I don't believe it needs relicensing.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the Python standard library logging module is
>> covered by the Python license *and* the Vin
> I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly
> marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license
> conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0
> http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0> is a good one IMO.
If they really want public domain, th
On 07/09/14 14:51, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Riley Baird (2014-09-07 05:39:02)
>> On 06/09/14 11:34, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:18 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul pleasr open a bug under lintian
On 06/09/14 11:34, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:18 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
>> Paul pleasr open a bug under lintian. Will a source duplicate
>> pedantic level
>
> I'm not sure there are enough copies to warrant this.
There are many other licenses that are copies of Vinay'
> 1. I don't believe dictconfig is shipped separately - it's part of
> logutils.
Okay, thanks, I didn't realise that.
> 2. Since 0.3.3, logutils uses what I believe is a standard 3-clause BSD
> - see the LICENSE.txt [1].
That's good. The package maintainers will just need to update to use the
ne
> This is an odd statement for GPLv2 code:
>
> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk8/ :
>> International Use Restrictions
>
>> Due to limited intellectual property protection and enforcement in
>> certain countries, the JDK source code may only be distributed to an
>> authorized list of countries
> As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2
> but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed
> GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it
> into a GPL3 project with Apache2 code which should be compa
On 31/08/14 16:56, felipe kazancakis wrote:
> has anyone else received the below email, too?
>
> this seems to be a spammer advertising his/her own services. please
> remove from the list.
To report an item as spam, you can go onto the webpage of the post (in
this case: https://lists.debian.org/d
>> I'm from Debian GNU/Linux. On our legal mailing list, we've been having
>> concerns about the license that you put most of your software under.
>> Essentially, we think that when you say
>>
>> the name of Vinay Sajip
>> not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution
>> of the
On 29/08/14 07:05, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
>
>> Afaict, the only Vinay Sajip-licensed code that Debian uses is the
>> Python logging module. Before I send a response to Vinay, can anyone
>> confirm that we don't use any
Afaict, the only Vinay Sajip-licensed code that Debian uses is the
Python logging module. Before I send a response to Vinay, can anyone
confirm that we don't use any more of his stuff?
http://codesearch.debian.net/search?prev=&q=the+name+of+Vinay+Sajip
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-r
>> Also, how does not allowing the usage of a name in advertising make it
>> 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
ense that we know to be free? From the way your
license is written, I think that the 3-clause BSD license would be what
you want.
Yours thankfully,
Riley Baird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm
>> The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it's OK for other people
>> also called "Vinay Sajip" to release changes under their own name.
>> Anyone know? If not, then it fails DFSG.
Here is the problematic text:
the name of Vinay Sajip not be used in advertising or publicity
pertaining to d
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
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
