Re: Live-f1 license issue.

On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 00:12 +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: > I was thinking about package it for Debian GNU/Linux, but i found a > licence issue. You have a GPL program (live-f1) linking with OpenSSL. > This is only ok if you gave a license exception for this otherwise > the two licenses are

New licence for auto-tools m4 files

8<8<8<8<8<8<8<8< This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. >8>8>8>8

Hypothetical situation to chew on

I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL. A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to it, and many have claimed copyrigh

Re: Clarification of redistribution

On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 00:25 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote: > >> What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free? > >

Re: Clarification of redistribution

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote: > I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list: > What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free? > Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o) Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? H

Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)

On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 00:16 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: > > "Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > In another topic, I prefer the term "copyrighted". "Copyrightable" is > > > an ugly, ugly term... and everything t

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 04:48 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your > distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of. > No, that would be nothing to do with respect or gratitude; but a simple licence problem. We require t

Re: Bug#216667: Freetype patent issues

On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 23:12, Anthony Fok wrote: > I just did some experiments, and it seems that the "prettier" version > (http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with > FreeType's "autohinting" on. In that case, I suggest modifying > /etc/fonts/local.conf and uncommen

"Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info documentation. The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it consti

Re: Re: popular swirl...

On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 16:41, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Ben Reser quoth: > > Ignore the trademark issue. The copyright issue should be much clearer. > > Surely SPI knows who made the logo and that person can certify that it > > is an original work? If SPI can do that they have a case of a clear >

Re: popular swirl...

On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 16:33, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 03:18:29PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 06:04:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > > This has come up before. SPI was asked to look into the trademark > > > violation involved. IIRC, the prop

Re: how (not) to write copyright files

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:16, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Because I only checked a hundred or so and over 30 of them were broken. > My favorite example so far is fakeroot, > Isn't that Joost's original copyright message though? How the original author chooses to write their copyright/licence informa

Re: [POSITION SUMMARY] Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:00, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > > I will > > point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and > > INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even > > though it is under the MIT/X

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:13, MJ Ray wrote: > That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable > stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under > most definitions of "open source". > It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as Invaria

Re: "Software" and its translations (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:44, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: > > - "un logiciel" can even be used to mean "a software program", whereas > > the phrase "a software" sounds awkward to me in English (but then > > again, I'm not a native Englis

Re: Unidentified subject!

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote: > That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether > they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they > are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally > not the case, I will stop dis

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 13:43, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > >You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would > >be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of > >manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just

Re: GFDL compromise - Deadend.

A Cc: was not necessary, I'm subscribed to debian-legal. http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 12:29, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > For most people on earth, I do not think that software defi

Re: GFDL compromise - Deadend.

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 11:09, Mathieu Roy wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > because it's out of the scope of > > > _software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is > > > software). > > > >

Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software

On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 20:15, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Posessing a digitally signed e-mail from the author would have (under UK > > law) the same power as holding a written letter signed by the author. > > That&

Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software

On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 18:56, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can > > > > hardly be a valid proof of anything. > > > > > > In

Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software

On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 13:49, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > In some countries, it's accepted as a valid proof of the origin of > > > the email. > > > > A signature made with a secret key that was publishe

Re: GNU/LinEx, Debian, and the GNU FDL

On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 09:40, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > The FSF would like to continue cooperating with Debian in such areas > > where Debian's and the FSF's policies agree. However, we will not > > cooperate with people that tre

Re: How to get around the GFDL (under UK law, at least)

On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 13:42, Joe Moore wrote: > Scott James Remnant said: > > 4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to > > the HEAD. > > > > a. This patch should not include any licence changes. > > This patch is derived fr

GNU FDL makes "difference files" useless

GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64 The following two changes are made in this revision: -to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' +to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' and -(which makes passes at compilers) written +(which makes pas

How to get around the GFDL (under UK law, at least)

Sorry for the 3 GFDL-related e-mails in a row, but I discussed some of this stuff with my solicitor today, who I was seeing on an entirely unrelated matter but who quite enjoys these little discussions we have. His opinion is that the following is entirely legal and breaches neither Copyright or t

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 23:09, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs > > to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The > > Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but o

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Anthony Towns > > > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the > > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued > ^^ > >

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:30, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 > > > > iD8DBQE/Ri+5Qxo87a

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:09, Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published b

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 12:28, Joerg Wendland wrote: > The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having > invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a > conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do > not want anybody to change that sec

Re: Is the Apache Software License DFSG-compliant?

On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:51, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan, > Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in > derived work without written permission. > No, it forbids the use of their names in derived *Products*, not

Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in

On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 19:51, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > I don't know why you mention the GPL at all. You cannot combine code > under the GPL with proprietary software, nor can you have any kind of > invariant section in GPLd code. > If you define invariant section as a section of the software that ca

Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:04, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > [...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to > > convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention > > that people put "(c)" in computer program

Licence opinion

If anyone's got a free moment or two, could they pass opinion on the following as a licence. I'm especially interested in how it'd interact with other licences, esp. the GPL. # This work may be modified and distributed under any terms, licence # or agreement that meets all the conditions set out