On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I’m pretty sure many of the list are in similar cases. Now loading the
> UI directly into the application is the standard, but not so long ago
> people generated template code with glade and then edited it by hand.
> The .glade fil
[Note that I'm not subscribed to either d-d or d-legal so if you want
to ask me something, the quickest way is to Cc: me]
Hi,
I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
indicates the file is generated using
Package: tangogps
Version: 0.9.2-2
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
[Cc: debian-legal]
Hi,
The files
src/interface.c
src/interface.h
src/support.h
src/support.c
appear to be generated using the Glade user interface builder. However
the source code for them (i.e. th
Package: gpsdrive
Version: 2.10~pre4-6
Severity: normal
[Cc: to debian-legal]
Hi,
The source package contains the file scripts/gpsfetchmap.pl, which
has this copyright notice:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# gpsfetchmap
#
# You are allowed to modif
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 10:17:22AM +0100, Dima Barsky wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer either, but if we start talking about contributory
> infringement, shouldn't we remove all P2P clients from Debian as well?
> There is a much stronger case for contributory infringement there..
I'm not convinced. Signi
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:55:15AM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> I'd say it's rather obvious that there is a contract between the
> seller and eBay, but that's just my view) is no legal use for this
> program.
Sorry, I meant the bidder and eBay. But now that's not
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:38:34AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law
> and Debian is not bound to it.
Well, I don't know the law too well, that's why I asked you (and if
you feel it's legal, I'm happy about that). But some kind o
Package: esniper
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.3
[Cc:d to debian-legal]
Hi,
It's not obvious it is legal to distribute this software at all
(probably it either is fit for main or unfit for non-free too). I
suggest a review on debian-legal, since I'm not well versed in (at
least thi
[Please maintain the Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'm not on this
list]
Hello,
The copyright file (and the upstream[1]) of the package xpdf says
the license is GPLv2, and:
In order to cut down on the confusion a little bit, here are so
[Please Cc: me when replying]
Hello,
Generally for free software (and most other purposes) it seems that
works created by the US government are usually considered (sometimes
"effectively") to be in the public domain. I however have some
concerns about this.
The relevant US law says (title 17, ch
[Sorry if I messed up the reply somehow, I wasn't subscribed and that
made replying difficult. Now I am (to d-l). Couldn't these be archived
somewhere in mbox format?]
Hans Reiser wrote:
> It is the license for reiser4progs and not reiser4 in the kernel.
At least the kernel patches in the Debian
[Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
There has previously been discussion at least in April 2003 on this
list about the freeness of reiserfs.
It seems a further "clarification" has been added to the license (GPL
+ clarifications) in b
12 matches
Mail list logo
