[ please cc me, I'm not subscribed to debian-legal ]
Hi Debian-Legal,
(I'm cc'ing Tomas Baztek since he may be interested too)
tuxcmd-modules-unrar which I would like to package for Debian (since
it contains additional VFS module to use with tuxcmd to handle rar
archives) contains code licensed
> [ please cc me, I'm not subscribed to debian-legal ]
Hi All
Hmm, ...
>2. The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR
> archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used
> to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
> Dist
Hi all,
let me shed some light on source files structure:
./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules, cannot be
relicensed (LGPLv2+ might be an option though).
./unrar/unrar.c -- GPLv2+, may be relicensed if needed. It's a bridge
between two APIs.
./unrar/unrar/ -- original unrar so
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:47:38 +0100 Tomáš Bžatek wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi!
>
> let me shed some light on source files structure:
>
> ./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules, cannot be
> relicensed (LGPLv2+ might be an option though).
> ./unrar/unrar.c -- GPLv2+, may be relicensed if
Hi!
First of all, many thanks for your reply, Frencesco.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47:17PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:47:38 +0100 Tomáš Bžatek wrote:
> > let me shed some light on source files structure:
> >
> > ./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:11:18 +0100 Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
[...]
> Thomas has said, he would
> re-license the unrar/unrar.c, but the ones in common/ would not be
> possible. With the above in my understanding of your explanation, this
> will still make it inpossible to redistribute tuxcmd-modul
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:47 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Since the unrar license is (non-free and) GPL-incompatible, it is my
> understanding that anyone who distributes the linked resulting library
> would violate the copyright of the authors of the GPLv2+'ed part.
>
> In order to allow such a
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:32:41 +0100 Tomáš Bžatek wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:47 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Since the unrar license is (non-free and) GPL-incompatible, it is my
> > understanding that anyone who distributes the linked resulting library
> > would violate the copyright of t
Francesco Poli writes:
> P.S.: I think that maybe all this mess is not worth doing... maybe the
> best long-term solution is searching or developing a Free (GPLv2+
> compatible) UnRAR replacement.
AIUI, a major problem is that there is some kind of monopoly asserted by
the copyright holder in t
Hi
I'm forwarding this to Tomas too, since he may not be subscribed to
the debian-legal list.
Bests
Salvatore
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 12:35:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > P.S.: I think that maybe all this mess is not worth doing... maybe the
> > best long-term so
10 matches
Mail list logo
