t
https://pp3.sourceforge.net/
My suggestion would be to ask them if they would dual license everything
under the GPL-V3+, but any of the standard licenses would do.
https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
Cheers,
Walter Landry
right?
According to
https://www.debian.org/trademark
it looks like you can get a definitive answer by emailing
tradem...@debian.org
Cheers,
Walter Landry
inuxmemes
The policy on logo use is spelled out here.
https://www.debian.org/logos/
Hope that helps,
Walter Landry
stem finds it in 225 packages, of which 160 are not a
libboost* package.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
exchange.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00308.html
and a bug ticket that implemented DRM stripping.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298584
Running
pdftohtml --help
on my bookworm system includes the option
-nodrm : override document DRM settings
Cheers,
Walter Landry
the DFSG. It would be suitable for
non-free. IANADD. IANAL. YMMV.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Samuel Henrique writes:
> Nmap has just released its version 7.93, and it comes with a new
> license, similar to what it used to be, but it raised people's
> attention so the license got more scrutiny than ever and that resulted
> in long threads with no broad consensus.
For the record, here is t
Ben Westover writes:
> On August 5, 2022 1:03:18 AM EDT, Walter Landry wrote:
>>As someone who participated in that original exchange in 2004, APSL 2.0
>>still looks impossible to follow. If Debian suddenly goes off-line,
>>Debian is not in compliance with the license.
in 2004, APSL 2.0
still looks impossible to follow. If Debian suddenly goes off-line,
Debian is not in compliance with the license. For all of the other
licenses, offering the source at the same time is sufficient. For APSL
2.0, Debian has to keep the source archive up for at least 12 months
since it last published a modification.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
elieve it is used by
> default by the program.
How was book_small.bin generated? More concretely, if I wanted to add
chess openings, would I start from book_small.bin? Or is there some
other file that I would modify and then generate book_small.bin?
Cheers,
Walter Landry
I can not speak with authority. If those
guidelines are not sufficient and you need a more definitive answer,
then you probably need to speak to the Debian Project Leader.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
n be much,
much larger than the final form. So practical concerns can cause
problems.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
printed book is OK. Anything beyond that becomes an
exercise in parsing Supreme Court opinions and governmental regulations.
So I do not think that we can give you a definitive answer. We can only
tell you what Debian did, which is send a letter to BXA. I think Debian
used to send letters every time crypto software was updated, but BXA
asked them to stop.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Dominik George writes:
> Hi,
>
> some times, we (the AlekSIS team) stumble upon upstream maintainers
> who consider it funny to add amendments to licenses, or make up fun
> licenses on their own. Here are two examples:
>
> https://github.com/codeed
.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
looks equivalent to CC-BY
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
so I would use that instead.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
shows some
> software currently in main embed files with the "disparaging to Sun"
> part.
>
> [0]
> https://sources.debian.org/src/igv/2.6.3+dfsg-3/src/main/resources-jlfgr-1_0/LICENSE/
That sounds like a bug.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Guilherme Xavier writes:
> License Website:
> https://www.vtiger.com/open-source-crm/vtiger-public-license/
It kind of reminds me of the IBM Common Public License. I am not so
worried about your specific concerns. Yes, people can write non-free
things that include this code. The patent lawsuit
Bastian Germann writes:
> Am 02.06.21 um 17:33 schrieb Tobias Frost:
>> Is this RFS package now a downloader or the library itself?
>
> It's both. The -dev package is created from the source files and
> resides in main. The library package contains the downloader as a
> postinst script, which check
Bone Baboon writes:
> * The "Uses that require explicit approval" section says "Distributing a
> modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package
> manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written
> permission from the Rust core team.". This appears to in
nuTLS. That is not an issue for
Debian, since Debian releases source code for everything.
As always, I can only guess. FTP master is the final authority for all
this.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
fter
> all, source code doesn't have much of a use on its own, and a modification
> is a use.
There are plenty of people in the world who are happy to have their work
distributed, but not modified. So this is not a safe assumption.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
ifiable in a
manner consistent with the DFSG. If it would go on a Debian DVD, then
all of the bits on that DVD must DFSG-free. Otherwise, it may or may
not be able to be hosted on non-free or contrib.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.
So a makefile or equivalent is required.
On a more practical level, Debian has to be able to rebuild all of the
binaries from source. If you can not do that, then that would be an RC
bug.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Sven Bartscher writes:
> Hi,
>
> Am 15.05.2018 um 20:04 schrieb Walter Landry:
>> Sven Bartscher writes:
>>> As there are some problems[1] with the compiled shared library as
>>> distributed by upstream (and because compiling things ourselves is
>>>
se it as asking what license that part is under. There are
a few obvious choices: LGPL 2.1 or later (to match SDL), MIT, or
Apache. Please do not suggest a custom license.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
not seeing the
problem here.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
xplicitly does not permit distribution of modified works.
> That permission is needed if the work is to be free software.
You are right. I missed that.
Walter Landry
Hi Dave,
The FTP masters are the final judge, but it looks fine to me. It is
basically free distribution with a requirement to change attributions if
modified.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Dave Hibberd writes:
> Walter,
>
> Thanks for the response - I got in touch with Mr Folkner, and I rec
the archive of this (e.g. CECILL).
Cheers,
Walter Landry
anet_eph_export
It references William Folkner. He published a paper in 2014, so he may
still be around.
Cheer,
Walter Landry
IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> (please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list)
>
> On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote:
>>>
>>> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under
>>> the BSL?
>>
>> A
ains a verbatim license of the BSL (attached).
>
> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under
> the BSL?
Are the headers sufficient for development, or does it require some
compiled libraries? If so, it does not matter if the headers are
free, since the libraries will be required for any development anyway.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
our software links with GPL-licensed
software, then you may be required to give out the source of your test
software to anyone who gets the binaries.
So what you want to do is at least plausible. What you need to do now
is sit down with a lawyer and get answers specific to your situat
>
> Is this last paragraph a possible violation of DSFG, or, should it not
> be taken in consideration since it seems to exempt the source code?
That makes the source code free, but everything else non-free. Does
the package contain the non-source bits?
Cheers,
Walter Landry
; Please assist me.
One thing I can say for certain is that Debian does not sell licenses.
For your other questions, this page may be helpful.
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-redistrib.en.html
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote:
>> With that said, the usual approach that Debian follows is that if the
>> patent is not being actively enforced, Debian does not worry about
>> them. Otherwise, Debian would not be able to ship anything. Sin
o create and submit a package. I am a random person
who has been following the debian-legal mailing list for some time, so
I think I have a sense of what the FTP masters are thinking. YMMV.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
lies for components that do not accompany the executable.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
action is to only worry about
actively enforced patents. If Facebook is not actually going around
filing suits based on these patents, then Debian usually does not care
about patent issues.
So I agree.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
n
required by the license.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Walter Landry:
>
>> The EADL data was created by US Government employees (Lawrence
>> Livermore). So there is no copyright in the US. Also, in the US,
>> there is no copyright in a set of facts. However, as a courtesy, you
>> should pre
so, in the US,
there is no copyright in a set of facts. However, as a courtesy, you
should preserve the credits.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
of the Materials, and to
> permit persons to whom the Materials are furnished to do so, subject to
> the following conditions:"
>
> It is define "Materials" as the documentation files only ?
The most natural reading is for Materials to mean "software and/or
associated documentation". So I think this package is fine.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Zhu-Zhu Chin wrote:
> 25.02.2016, 06:31, "Walter Landry" :
>
>> Tor itself would not have to switch. Distributors would have to
>> be careful when distributing binaries, which is something that Tor
>> may or may not care about.
>
> Tor wouldn't hav
can not
change the license of other GPL'd works.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
nce and patent protection.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
d we move forward? Are there
> more steps we should follow?
I think you are OK. There is nothing more to do.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
; //charge for additions, extensions, or support.
I do not think this is not a problem in practice. If you add a
trivial addition to the code, then you are allowed to charge for the
code.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
t is definitely incompatible
with GPLv2+. It also restricts how you can use it. In addition,
Debian will not distribute it in main, since Debian guarantees that
people can do things like sell installer DVD's with the contents of
main. If you want to distribute this software linked to a GPLv2+
project, you will have to ask for a new license from FBH.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
I could not
find any with a cursory search. Do you have specific examples of
files that Debian ships that are covered by the W3C Document license?
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
request, not a binding requirement.
That is not clear to me.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
de if you want to modify and/or copy. So I think it is fine.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Ole Streicher wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>> Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
>>> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>>
>> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source'
se
1) CVS is free software
2) Those lines are not critical to functionality.
3) The lines are very short and not difficult to modify.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
search, I could not find the source for the
documentation. But I am absolutely certain someone on petsc-maint
could point you to it.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
, nor via goog,
> so I cannot be sure whether it limited the relicensing to software which
> was released under the original BSD license, or coverred all software
> copyrighted by the Regents.
I found something here
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
I do not think i
distributing
http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp/pro/misc/blkshift.pro
That and a few other files have a non-commercial use license.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...
Ángel González wrote:
> On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> Here are a few comments about the license.
>>>
>>> - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is
>>> - Free.
>> I would stro
e NOTICE file. AFL requires
preserving
any descriptive text identified therein as an "Attribution Notice."
There is no requirement that the text actually be an attribution
notice. So maybe it is OK as long as there are only attributions in
the "Attribution Notice".
Cheers,
Wal
eloper would
> ask friendly to remove a version without the limitation from Debian.
If anyone actually used the software, I think the limitation would be
quickly removed. As a historical example, xpdf, as distributed by
the developer, prevented copy and paste from documents that were
marked rea
e else. I have attached a sample letter.
Use as much or as little as you like. You need to let Peter Stetson
look at your letter before you send it. Without his complete support
you are unlikely to succeed.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Subject: Distributing Daophot through Debian
Dear Dr. Fahlman,
principle, extract the
constants from NIST yourself. The disciplines.vams file is more
complicated, because it is not just constants. It looks like a number
of tolerances that have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Maybe you
could ask Accellera for a better license? IETF RFC's have the s
t in trouble. That feels wrong.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
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/20141104.164837.1940264495017064422.wlan...@caltech.edu
is just Oracle saying that they will not offer downloads to
people in embargoed countries (e.g. Cuba). Debian does a similar
thing. This does not prevent anyone from taking that download and
giving it to a Cuban.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.
Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Would you change the licence to something more usual, like MIT/X style?
>
> No, this is completely infeasible
That is not correct. It is very easy to change the license because
the license has an upgrade clause (condition #5).
Cheers,
Walter Landry
--
To
n license
so that we do not have to argue *again* over whether this really
solves all of the problems.
Thanks,
Walter Landry
stand that changing licenses is a huge chore, and the
benefits can sometimes be intangible. The main benefit is that you
will never have to deal with us again ;)
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of &qu
Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 9 mai 2014 11:26 -0700, Walter Landry :
>
>> I do not see any permission to redistribute. Many organizations want
>> to be the sole source of their software, so redistribution is not
>> something you should assume. So this license will not
For future reference, I am attaching the license. It is pretty much
the usual icky commercial license.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Terms of Use
You acknowledge and agree that you are downloading and using the
software at your own risk, and that you did not rely upon any skill or
judgment of Perf
ll misleading to end-users. This makes it a
minor bug. But it is still a bug. Since upstream is not willing to
fix it, Debian can. If Vincent is willing to do all of the work of
preparing a correct patch, I do not see a good reason to refuse to
apply the patch.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan
the stereotypical hentai comics that commonly depict rape,
> child abuse, dismemberment etc. are not legal to posess in NL as well?
>
> Quote: <http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-06/kinderpornographie>
The US seems to be more strict. A man was convicted in 2010 for
sending Hen
/usr/share/doc/openjdk-7-jre/copyright
it does not mention that license. I do not think that Debian ships
the TCK. Looking at
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html
it looks like they do not give out the TCK to everyone.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
--
To UNSUBSCRI
that the tarball that Debian distributes to users must not
contain non-free bits. This is hardly the first time that this has
come up [1]. Yes, it is annoying for the packager. But it is useful for
the user to know that, whatever is in the tarball, they will not have
to do any forensic analys
are incompatible licenses, meaning that
Debian could not distribute binaries. One solution would be to put
everything under Expat or MIT. Alternately, you could dual license
everything under GPL 3+ and EPL 1+.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lega
; stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
>
> You know, the one in the GPLv2?
>
> Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd.
Not all file types have comments. The GPL is more flexible. For
example, you can modify an image and put the required
ept with an
attorney? So do not post anything to debian-private expecting it not
to get subpoenaed? That would be more sensible advice.
The other points are good, but those two really made me scratch my
head.
In contrast, the patent FAQ at
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq
is go
ense and replace "Internet2" with "J. Random".
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20120203.115647.1906689101038995781.wal...@geodynamics.org
y, Windows(R) users may use this file under the terms of the Qt
Eclipse
** Plug In License Agreement Version 1.0 as attached in the LICENSE.TXT
** file.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20120202.123118.1584880682135202000.wal...@geodynamics.org
of not assuming that the layout of a class
stays the same when adding private: or protected: decorations.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
/*
* OpenSCAD (www.openscad.org)
* Copyright (C) 2009-2011 Clifford Wolf and
* Marius Kintel
*
* This program is
at
> Washington University School of Medicine" and/or by direct citation.
>
> I guess that is the biggest concern.
It is only a request, not a requirement. So it is fine. Everything
else looks fine to me.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUB
uba more tools for oppression. As for Debian, I do not remember
what decision the Debian FTP masters made about these types of
clauses.
In any case, it would be a million times better for NASA to reuse an
existing license.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
>> > Option 2
>> >
> [...]
>> I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows
>> copying and modification of "reasonable" amoun
Walter Landry wrote:
> Option 1
As noted, the clause
HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for
use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited.
makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any
time on any other parts.
> Op
ware Guidelines.
>
> The proposed licence is Option 3, listed here.
> http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3
For posterity, I am attaching the complete copy of the three options.
In a followup email I will analyze them.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
Optio
The case for the Bittorrent users, on the other hand, is less clear.
Since the users are dependent on the Debian tracker, you could argue
that they are merely acting as agents of Debian. Anyone setting up
their own tracker would have to distribute both binary and source.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wl
gal I have not seen any other
cohesive approaches. I have seen plenty of people say things like "it
is POSSIBLE to modify it, therefore it is source". But that makes the
source requirement a no-op.
This is in contrast to, for example, which licenses people prefer.
Some people prefe
pen, git is largely comprised of many small
utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi
quired for actual use in the community, ala iceweasel.
Iigo? Weego? (maybe too similar) Yoogo? Allgo?
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
include:
>
> - - Any commercial use."
This makes it clearly non-free. It is best to just replace anything
trademarked by Ubuntu.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
fairly standard to me, but maybe someone with better knowledge
> can enlighten us?
Point 6 is not a problem. It is only informative. It creates no
requirements.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
Rogério Brito wrote:
> Hi, Walter and other people.
>
> On Apr 13 2010, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Re: Software Licence for URW Garamond Fonts
>>
>> To whom it may concern,
>>
>> I am a software developer associated with the Debian project [1], an
>>
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
>> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>>> Hi Walter,
>>>
>>> There are obviously varying needs and preferences (prejudices?) along
>>> the licensing spectrum but IMHO your reply is very reductive.
>>>
Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:20:30PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
>> > BTW one of the goals we have in the Debian fonts team is to work to
>> > reduce the big duplication of fonts in various packages in our archive:
>
asing body of libre/open fonts we now enjoy.
I am still having a hard time finding a GPL-compatible monospaced
font...
> There's plenty of discussions on the open font library mailing-list for
> example. If you want to contribute to getting this fixed, I recommend
> you talk to Dave Crossland who has been proposing to tackle this for
> years...
Getting what fixed? I still do not see the real problems with
GPL+font exception.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20100415.192030.1023635395894569686.wal...@geodynamics.org
it matches the md5sum and the sha1sum for
> said file?
The math does not work. The search space is still too unfeasibly
large. There are 2^(8*448) different combinations. You will find a
collision in md5sum first, though the sun would have burned out long
before the loop completed.
C
PL still has a bunch of unsolved
> problems. I wouldn't recommend that.
What are these problems? A quick search yielded nothing.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Rogério Brito wrote:
> P.S.: Please, as I am not a native speaker of English, feel free to
> correct my grammar, style or anything that would improve the text.
Here you go. Feel free to ignore any or all of my suggestions.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Re: Software Licence f
yGPL
You can still call it a modified version of the GPL.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20100409.202825.38538952185178.wal...@geodynamics.org
#x27;s relevant, and
> the text says that *programs* must include source code, not arbitrary
> non-program works distributed in Debian.
That was voted on 2004 and Debian decided that you are incorrect. It
is time to move on.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlan...@caltech.edu
--
To UNSUBSC
1 - 100 of 723 matches
Mail list logo
