* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> > only code that accompanies genuin
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > > myself examined the license before a
* Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810
>
> That package seem to be in non-free now... I'm arguing the same for
> RFCs in other packages too.
The bug is
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> > problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
> > and better than I would expect.
> >
> > Should we file bug reports for these p
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
> >w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the
> >GR) rules apply. If people want to change the DFSG then they'll need to
>
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mar 13, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
> > > >w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: pr
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So that leads us right back to my point of trying to figure out what the
> Project is telling us about interpreting licenses and the DFSG.
I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
w/o invariant sections are free. Oth
* olive ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the
> >Supreme Court (at least in the US).
>
> Debian is an international project and not a US project. I don't think
> that many non US Debian users or developer will be happy with that.
>
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> >Did I miss something here? Does Debian actually have such a license (or
> >SPI)?
> >
> No, but LMI's position is that everybody who uses the mark "Linux" has
> to get one. It'
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> >What's the scenario you're concerned about here? Someone taking Debian
> >and distributing it as "MyLinux" and Debian not protecting that use
> >somehow?
> >
> Not even
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The problem isn't the cost. Even the most expensive tier is only
> $5K/year. It's the license terms. As usual for agreements drawn up to
> accomodate the commercial software vendors of the world and not us, they
> don't take into account sublicensing of o
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Of course, other alternatives would be to ask if they'd let us have a
> > license without the costs, given that we're a not-for-profit, etc.
>
> Non-Pro
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
> with a demand for money in order to make use of the "Linux" trademark.
> Said demand would also apply to the Debian project. I believe their
> terms to be non-DFSG-compliant. See http
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
> > the binary in this case. Write a Q&D disassembler and extract the
> > assembly if you w
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> But almost no one, if given a choice of the binary or the assembly language
> to edit, would choose the binary. At the very least, the assembly would be
> invaluable to deciphering the details of the firmware, and I suspect many
> programmers would write
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "We can't reasonably get permission to do this" does *not* mean "therefore
> let's just assume we have it". Debian makes a strong effort not to be
> that sloppy and careless with licensing.
We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
> > clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
>
> If it
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder.
>
> I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire
> Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt
> it), I'm sure there's
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > For "possible", that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
>
> Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
> is a clear-cut violation of the
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution
> which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement.
> The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be
> copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which U
discussing these issues and hope there can be some
resolution here. Perhaps the offending licenses and the files they
cover can be changed with permission of the copyright owners or their
contents reimplemented under a more reasonable license.
Yours truly,
Stephen Frost
Comments? I didn't think the OpenLDAP license had the same restrictions
the OpenSSL one did...?
- Forwarded message from "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:15:03 -0700
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
22 matches
Mail list logo
