Ian Jackson writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"):
> > One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit
> > permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties
> > under the same conditions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum:
Finally the upstream maintainers of the nauty software suite has adopted
the Apache 2.0 License. [1]
Thanks a lot for your constructive comments,
Jerome
[1] http://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v
Jerome BENOIT writes:
> Finally the upstream maintainers of the nauty software suite has adopted
> the Apache 2.0 License. [1]
>
> Thanks a lot for your constructive comments,
Excellent news! Thank you for your diligence and congratulations on this
good result.
--
\ “The surest way to c
Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Knoppix needs:
> >
> > - permission from upstream for Knoppix modify and redistribute the
> > modified versions. This is granted directly to Knoppix by
>
Ben Finney writes ("Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?"):
> One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit
> permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under
> the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3.
Such a sublice
Jerome BENOIT writes:
> Finally I get a feed back from the upstream.
Thank you, Jerome, for engaging the copyright holders effectively to
improve the freedom of software recipients.
> Please find below the new version: what do you think ?
> […]
> [[Modified versions of the software and works d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum.
Finally I get a feed back from the upstream.
Please find below the new version: what do you think ?
Thanks,
Jerome
-
This is the [[license]] for the softwar
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0100 (CET)
Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote:
>
> >> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to
> >> clarify their Copyright.
> >
> > I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum:
thanks a lot for your constructive comments.
On 12/03/16 04:37, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
>> Jerome BENOIT writes:
>>
>>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
That lic
What enforcement actions can you possibly see arising from this?
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:16:43 -0500
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> So who bears the exposure to litigation or
> enforcement actions?
> -tony
>
> On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
> > I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Riley Baird wrote:
Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to
clarify their Copyright.
I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the
effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP
masters reject
So who bears the exposure to litigation or
enforcement actions?
-tony
On 2016-03-12 1:17 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth the
effort. Try submitting the package to the archive, and if the FTP
masters reject it, you can deal with the probl
> > Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
> > ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment.
> >
> Please let me know if would be good idea to contact the upstream team to
> clarify their Copyright.
I know you were asking Ben, but really, I'd say that it isn't worth t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum:
On 12/03/16 03:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> Jerome BENOIT writes:
>
>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
>>> That licence is fine.
>>>
>> So now step forward in peace.
>
> Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
>
Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Jerome BENOIT writes:
>
> > On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
> > > That licence is fine.
> > >
> > So now step forward in peace.
>
> Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
> ‘debian-legal’; I disagree wi
> One significant lack is that the permissions do not include explicit
> permission for a recipient to license the work to third parties under
> the same conditions. This fails DFSG §3.
I think that you're misinterpreting DFSG §3. A user needs the right to
distribute the work such that the people
Jerome BENOIT writes:
> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
> > That licence is fine.
> >
> So now step forward in peace.
Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment.
--
\ “I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new
copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that
the new
Ben Finney writes:
> Permission is hereby given for the use, distribution and
> modification of this software subject to the following.
> * You must include this copyright notice with all distributed
> copies of this software, including modified copies.
> * You must clearly mark modified
Jerome BENOIT writes:
> [1] https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nauty.html
> [2] http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/nauty/COPYRIGHT.txt
It is very helpful to have the verbatim text of the license in the
discussion thread for reference. Here is the content of the
“COPYRIGHT.txt” document today:
> >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new
> >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
> >>
> >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that
> >> the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant.
That licence is fine.
pgpAVpU96_Kgu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum:
On 11/03/16 13:47, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new
>> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
>>
>> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you co
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright
> notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
>
> I am considering to migrate it to main:
> please can you confirm that the new copyright notice is effectively
> DFSG-conformant.
Unless I'm going blind again
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum:
One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new copyright
notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
I am considering to migrate it to main:
please can you confirm that the new copyright notice is effectively
DFSG-conformant.
24 matches
Mail list logo
