Re: License violations for dependencies of Rust and Go programs?

2023-09-26 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 08:36 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > This more general problem is very hard to impossible to solve, > since it would mean patching every single build toolchain and > source package [...] Are the upstream developers not already legally required to include all this information into

Re: Questions about spacet cadet reverse engineering

2023-01-01 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
They clearly state that they decompiled binaries from Windows XP. This means it is a /fork/ and *not* a /clone/. Since I have not heard that Microsoft has put a permissive license on those binaries, I would expect that the restrictions of the original binary apply. Regards

Re: Store Wikimedia Commons picture of the day and description

2022-11-26 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
First of all, the program itself should be legal in any case as long as you are not distributing any pictures with Debian. Secondly, it is probably a good idea to save the author and license information with the description. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message

Re: Is the APSL 2.0 DFSG-compliant?

2022-08-05 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > That's not a restriction, though. It's *not* saying "you may not use > this software for XXX", it's saying "this software is not intended > for XXX". There's quite a difference there IMHO. To me it sounds like a more explicit “No Warran

Re: Is the APSL 2.0 DFSG-compliant?

2022-08-05 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 08:25 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > I wouldn't put any weight on the presence of the APSL 2.0 license > text > in the archive, probably it got into Debian in those packages due to > lack of copyright/license review rather than deliberate acceptance, > especially since it is in one

Re: Is the APSL 2.0 DFSG-compliant?

2022-08-05 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
> Interesting, the APSL 2.0 is seen in some relatively important > packages like Chromium and QtWebEngine. What code is exactly under that license? As far as I know, WebKit itself (which Chromium is a fork of) is licensed under LGPL (KDE code) and 2-clause BSD (Apple code). In your example of Chr

Re: Binary file inside fruit package

2022-06-27 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 07:27 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > No, that is not how it works. It is not only nice to have. > We want the "preferred form of modification" in the package and a > binary > blob is often not. > > > For example, a program might contain a picture, but not the project > > files

Re: Binary file inside fruit package

2022-06-26 Thread Stephan Verbücheln
Is it really an executabe binary, i.e. a computer program for any real or virtual programming or machine language? I don't think that (non-executable) binary data is a problem. If the data is produced/generated with some tools, the “source” would be nice to have though, because it helps to make mo