Thanks a lot all, I'm going to remove this file from the package now.
Have a nice day, Arthur.
Le lundi 07 mai 2007 à 17:28 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Arthur Loiret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > % Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without
> > license
> > % or r
Arthur Loiret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> % Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license
> % or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose,
> % including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
> [...]
> % * The on
Hi Arthur!
You wrote:
> This license looks like the MIT license, but I'm wondering if I can let
> this file in the package.
> Could you please tell me what is your opinion ?
Apart from the logo, which is definately non-free, it looks ok. Just
remove the logo and you should be fine.
--
+--
On 5/7/07, Arthur Loiret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
% * The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to
% your product name.
%
% * The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative
proportions
% of its elements are maintained.
Non-free.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdli
Hi,
I'm packaging luabind for debian but I have a license with the
doc/luabind-logo-label.ps : in the comments of this file we can see :
%--
%
% Copyright (C) 1998-2000. All rights reserved.
% Graphic design by Alexandre
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:24:55 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (For what it's worth, I value being able to be anonymous, but don't
> actually want to *be* anonymous. That is, I attach my name to what I
> say and create; I hold people who post and code anonymously in
> question--"do they consider what
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if the
> Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way
> too verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require such a
> limited changelog would be "provide a n
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Given that we are all concerned about copyrights and having proof that the
code is free and not ripped off from SCO or whoever, identification seems to
be a worthy goal of free software, which must be balanc
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:15:06AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> But the two have substantially different meenings... like, seriously
> substantial. "Use" is not a well defined term in the Copyright statute and
> control of "use" is generally accepted to be beyond the exclusive rights
> granted
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 10:24 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > That said, it's usually a bit of a leap to call "discrimination" on a
> > > license clause, since on one hand, there's usually some underlying
> > > freedom that the person
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:24:55AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I find it somewhat curious that people throw around the word "compromise"
> in the context of the software freedoms as if it's actually desirable--"we
> should compromise, give up our principles and our freedoms in order to
> have mor
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > That said, it's usually a bit of a leap to call "discrimination" on a
> > license clause, since on one hand, there's usually some underlying freedom
> > that the person actually has in mind; and on the other hand, every
> > restricti
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 07:41 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination.
> > A group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the
> > Court says that wh
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A
> group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court
> says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A
>group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court
>says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination.
>The law itself is facially neutral a
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 01:43 pm, David Starner wrote:
> > It is discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an
> > individual or group, like "you cannot use this software if you are
> > black" or "you cannot use this software if you are the military".
>
> But not "you cannot use
> It is discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an
> individual or group, like "you cannot use this software if you are
> black" or "you cannot use this software if you are the military".
But not "you cannot use this software if you're Christian", since
that's clearly not an i
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:17:38PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > >> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> > >> that you changed t
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:59:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:57 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable interpretation
> > >of DFSG 5. Why should you exclude from the Free Software process
> >
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:57 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
> >> persons or groups". This is an unreasonable interpretation of the
> >> original meaning of DFSG.5.
> >I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an un
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > >> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> > >> stating that you changed the files and the date of any
> > >> change.
* Marco ::
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
> >> persons or groups". This is an unreasonable interpretation of
> >> the original meaning of DFSG.5.
> >I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable
> >interpretation of DFSG 5. Why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
>> persons or groups". This is an unreasonable interpretation of the
>> original meaning of DFSG.5.
>I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable interpretation
>of DFSG 5. Why should you exclude from t
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 14:09 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of
> various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive
> policy decisions based on thin air?
Pretty much, yes. The decision-making power eventually lies with
ftp-masters, but AFA
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 19:12 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > The Initial Developer will be acting as the
> > maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
> > Initial Developer of any modification which You create
> > or to which You contribute, [...]
> > This goes against the Freedom 3 o
* Marco ::
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the
> >software may not have internet access for emailing the changes.
> >(Think perhaps a developing nation.)
> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
> persons or groups". This
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political
> > > science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a
> > > self-appointed group of various legal, political, an
>
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
> > >flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that
> > >you feel hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
> >
> > Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the
> > tests are commonly used.
> Stop right there... my whole point in criticizing
> those who believe this to
> be non-free is that they cannot site an actual
> clause of the DFSG to support
> the position.
I've already said that it goes against the 3rd clause
of DFSG, because it permits neither releasing a
modified versi
On Sunday 12 June 2005 12:19 am, Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> A free software license should not require any
> modifications to be submitted to the initial
> developer. This doesn't seem to allow releasing my
> modified code _myself_ without submitting it to
> anyone, only the initial developer can do so.
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that's certainly a great deal better, structurally. I guess I've nev=
> er=20
> really seen any ftp-master discussion on this list... but then again, I=20
> don't know their names, so I wouldn't really know who was who. But at leas=
> t=20
> there
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science=20
> perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of=
You have written self-appointed. That is incorrect. debian-legal
is not a delegated or appointed post. Se
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The choice-of-venue makes it *non-free*.
> There is no consensus about this, many people have no complaints about
> choice of venue.
..and there I was thinking that we needed consensus to say that
something is free, too.
I cons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are
>commonly used.
>
>http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
You do not understand correctly. This FAQ is merely the opinion of a few
debian-legal contributors, is not widely accepted and is by no m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the software may not
>have internet access for emailing the changes. (Think perhaps a developing
>nation.)
I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against persons or
groups". This is an unreasonable int
A free software license should not require any
modifications to be submitted to the initial
developer. This doesn't seem to allow releasing my
modified code _myself_ without submitting it to
anyone, only the initial developer can do so.
also this is from the DFSG FAQ:
# The Dissident test.
Consi
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science
> > perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group
> > of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is maki
On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> >> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> >> that you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this
> >> violate the Diss
On Saturday 11 June 2005 04:58 pm, Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> It's not a free software license because of this one.
>
> 4. Initial Developer as Maintainer of Source Code
> The Initial Developer will be acting as the
> maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
> Initial Developer of any mod
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
>> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
>> you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this violate the
>> Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state
It's not a free software license because of this one.
4. Initial Developer as Maintainer of Source Code
The Initial Developer will be acting as the
maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
Initial Developer of any modification which You create
or to which You contribute, except for
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
> you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this violate the
> Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen?
No, because the following statement is allo
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science
> perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of
> various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive
> policy decisions based on thin air?
No. Debian
On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
> >flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that you feel
> > hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
>
> Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are
> commonly used.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~
flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that you feel hints
at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are
commonly used.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:29 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
> """
> Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified
> bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the
> identity of the modifier, or directly reveal the modifications themselves,
> or even po
If this is actually a test that licenses must pass to be considered DFSG,
how
exactly does the GPL survive the test? Section 2, clause a of the GPL
reads,
"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this v
On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:03 am, Joe Smith wrote:
> a.. The Dissident test.
> Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified
> bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the
> identity of the modifier, or *directly reveal the modifications
> t
UNFREE: fails Desert Island test.
This is not relevant, because this test is not based on the DFSG so it
cannot make a license to be non-free.
This requirement all fails the dissident test.
Quote fom the faq:
a.. The Dissident test.
Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The choice-of-venue makes it *non-free*.
There is no consensus about this, many people have no complaints about
choice of venue.
>UNFREE: fails Desert Island test.
This is not relevant, because this test is not based on the DFSG so it
cannot make a license to be non-free
The licence is non-free. (IANAL) (IANADD)
I'm not inlcuing the licence text again because I'm going part by part. See
the previous message.
Section 1:
This seems Odd. This licence (Base PL) is included in this message. It
conflicts with the main licence in a few places so I assume that the ma
Text of licence:
version 1.0
1. Incorporation of Base Public License
The Base Public License version 1.0 is hereby incorporated and made a
part of this license by reference. The Base Public License can be found in
a t
[Please CC me, I am not subscribed to -legal]
I am considering filing an ITP and automated build server called
Anthill. They have a free and non-free version. The free version is
licensed [0] under a license that looks quasi-BSD with annoying
advertising clause. That does not worry me so much a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> OK, I'm dropping this. I don't see any way to get upstream to release
> the software under a free license, as the copyright holder is indeed not
> the author, but the university.
You shouldn't necessarily give up, if the upstream author (the
p
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:36:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Nicolas Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
> > software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
> > original answer is below. It translates
Nicolas Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
> software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
> original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
> they say: "It's OK to build on top of o
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:45:36AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Note that relicensing software under a different licence that you have
> merely repackaged is not considered good form.
It's not just bad form.
It's not even valid if one has not made any original contributions to
the work. Matthew B
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
> Hi again.
>
> *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
> software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
> original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
> they say: "It's OK to build on top of our work.
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: "It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as
absolute
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:27:41PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> This is a good clarification. However if you recheck what I wrote above
> you'll see I specifically mentioned "permission to do something covered by
> copyright law". I had in mind the activities covered by copyright law like
> distribu
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:35:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please do not discourage people from using this list for one of its
> intended purposes.
If I can be discouraged from posting by a well-deserved smack, I don't
belong here.
> If you feel this person should not have passed the New
Hi Branden Robinson,
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
>> > There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
>> > been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
> > been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
> > the licence then
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> > Distribution
> > You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
> > all files are included. The files in this package are
>
> This is "freeware"; it is acute
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
> been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
> the licence then you don't have that permission. Once you realise this it
> will be eas
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
>> This is "freeware"; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
>> ask?).
>
> I rather ask and take the ridicule, if any, than brooding over legal
> implications I'm not very likely to understand. I do have severe trouble
> to parse legalese and licenses, maybe I'm just a
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> > Distribution
> > You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
> > all files are included. The files in this package are
>
> This is "freeware"; it is acute
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> Distribution
> You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
> all files are included. The files in this package are
This is "freeware"; it is acutely non-free (why do you even have to
ask?).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
Hello, world.
I am thinking about packaging a Java BDD tool called (of all things)
"jade"[1].
Before I venture further, can someone enlighten me about the freeness of
the attached license? It only talks about distribution, nothing about
derived works. And it looks like it was taken from the bina
Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
>> I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to
>> go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it
>> pass DFSG 1?
>
> I don't think so. Also, this license does not
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
> I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to
> go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it
> pass DFSG 1?
I don't think so. Also, this license does not explicitly allow
modification and redistributi
I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to
go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it
pass DFSG 1?
Thanks,
Andrew Stribblehill,
Systems Programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England
8<-
Copyright 1999 by Dan Farmer.
72 matches
Mail list logo
