Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

or similar, and you're not triggering the requirements of the license that are typically triggered by distribution. On Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 06:35 Florian Weimer wrote: > * PEPPÈ Santarsiero: > > > I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, > > which I h

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

* PEPPÈ Santarsiero: > I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, > which I have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license > for evaluation to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and would like to > discuss any proposed modifications they may sugg

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:06:15 +0200 Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:40:09AM +0200, Michael Stehmann wrote: > > Please do not develop new Free Software lincences. > > > > We still have more than 140. > > > > We need perhaps 3 to 5. > > > > Compliance checks are difficult enough now

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:40:09AM +0200, Michael Stehmann wrote: > Please do not develop new Free Software lincences. > > We still have more than 140. > > We need perhaps 3 to 5. > > Compliance checks are difficult enough now! > > So please do not develop new Free Software lincences! This. Ab

Re: R: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Hello, I have reservation about clauses 10 and 14. Clause 10 seems to restrict the use of software, even the clause is well-intentioned. There are many well-intentioned ideas to restrict one or more of the four freedoms, but they are patronizing. The person who distributes software under a

Re: R: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Hi, IMO, non-free: - fail with desert island/dissident tests - non-commercial constraints My 2 cents On 10/11/24 11:33, PEPPÈ Santarsiero wrote: This version include correction reported by Soren Stoutner from the debian team. Thanks for considering my request

R: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

This version include correction reported by Soren Stoutner from the debian team. Thanks for considering my request. Da: Soren Stoutner Inviato: Venerdì, 11 Ottobre, 2024 00:21 A: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Cc: PEPPÈ Santarsiero Oggetto: Re: Request for

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Please do not develop new Free Software lincences. We still have more than 140. We need perhaps 3 to 5. Compliance checks are difficult enough now! So please do not develop new Free Software lincences! Kind regards Michael

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Giuseppe, On Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:08:47 AM MST PEPPÈ Santarsiero wrote: > Dear Debian Legal Team, > I hope this message finds you well. > I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, which I > have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license fo

Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Dear Debian Legal Team, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, which I have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license for evaluation to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and would like to discuss any proposed

Re: Request for feedback: licensing a public specification

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:34:35 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote: [...] > Perhaps consider using > , the legal terms > of the RFC that describes Vorbis-over-RTP: > >The authors agree to grant third parties the irrevocable right to >copy, us

Re: Request for feedback: licensing a public specification

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 14:44:18 +0100, Nathan Willis wrote: > And those factors would need to interact predictably with a specification > document that is free to read, implement, and share ... but the specification > should not be forked or modified (since that would defeat the purpose: > interope

Request for feedback: licensing a public specification

Hi all, I am interested in hearing some genuine feedback on a new license that I was in a position to need and have therefore drafted. It is specifically for a "functional specification", which individual implementers might implement separately in their own environments or software stacks, but wh

Re: Request for Permission to Use Logo for Merchandise

permission, or if there are any specific conditions or licensing > agreements required for using the logo in this manner. > > Thank you for considering our request. I look forward to your positive response and hopefully collaborating closely to make > th

Re: Request for Permission to Use Logo for Merchandise

Rodrigo Vega Cruz writes: > Hi! > > So, just to make it clear and clarify that I have understood > correctly, I just have to include in my webpage Legal/Terms of Service > that the products using the Debian logo follow the CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, right? According

Re: Request for Permission to Use Logo for Merchandise

ollow to obtain your > permission, or if there are any specific conditions or licensing > > agreements required for using the logo in this manner. > > > > Thank you for considering our request. I look forward to your positive > response and hopefully collaborati

Re: Request for Permission to Use Logo for Merchandise

ents required for using the logo in this manner. > > Thank you for considering our request. I look forward to your positive > response and hopefully collaborating closely to make > this project beneficial for both parties. > > Best regards, > > Rodrigo Vega Cruz > Instagram: @dankl

Request for Permission to Use Logo for Merchandise

development. Please let me know the steps we need to follow to obtain your permission, or if there are any specific conditions or licensing agreements required for using the logo in this manner. Thank you for considering our request. I look forward to your positive response and hopefully

Ordering Apparel for Your Gym in 2016? Request a Quote.

Good Afternoon, CreateMyTee would love the chance to provide your gym's custom apparel in 2016. Over the past four years, we've gotten the opportunity to work with hundreds of gyms and fitness centers and we've learned a lot about what the community is looking for out of their apparel. Be it t

Re: Request for comment on license file

(Simon, please remember to respond interleaved as normal for email.) Simon Kainz writes: > Currently torque 2.4.16 is in main, so i take it for granted that it's > license is DFSG compatible, otherwise it wouldn't be there(at least it > would't for such a long time). Best not to assume that :-)

Re: Request for comment on license file

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:49:07 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote: [...] > Hello again. Hi! > > I'm still pondering about this issue and now have a different approach: > > Currently torque 2.4.16 is in main, so i take it for granted that it's > license is DFSG compatible, otherwise it wouldn't be there(at

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:56:04 +0200 Ferenc Kovacs wrote: [...] > I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it seems too > specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license > infringement. As far as I can say, the issue pointed out by the Debian Project is exac

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 09:56 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > I think the difference is that we have a couple of clauses which sounds > > weird/makes no sense when the license is used for extensions or anything > > else than php-src, like

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 09:56 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > I think the difference is that we have a couple of clauses which sounds > weird/makes no sense when the license is used for extensions or anything > else than php-src, like clause 3, 4 and 6. > And this is what they were complaining about in

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

Am 27.06.2014 13:18, schrieb Pierre Joye: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ulf Wendel wrote: > >> I perceive this reply as both sarcastic and agressive. Any particular >> reason bashing someone doing nothing but asking not to rush? > > It is certainly due to the language differences but there

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ulf Wendel wrote: > I perceive this reply as both sarcastic and agressive. Any particular > reason bashing someone doing nothing but asking not to rush? It is certainly due to the language differences but there was nothing sarcastic nor aggressive in my reply. So

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

Am 27.06.2014 11:28, schrieb Pierre Joye: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote: >> Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: >>> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it seems too >>> specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license >>>

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Jun 27, 2014 12:00 PM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote: >> >> Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: >> >>> I think th

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel > wrote: > >> Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: > >>> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it > seem

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote: >> Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: >>> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it seems too >>> specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ulf Wendel wrote: > Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: >> I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it seems too >> specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license >> infringement. > > Just keep the scope of any pos

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

Hi! > I think the difference is that we have a couple of clauses which sounds > weird/makes no sense when the license is used for extensions or anything > else than php-src, like clause 3, 4 and 6. > And this is what they were complaining about in the thread referenced > from their reject faq: > h

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

Am 27.06.2014 09:56, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: > I think they just consider our license troublesome for exts as it seems too > specific for php-src, and they only want to avoid possible license > infringement. Just keep the scope of any possible PHP license change in mind. You got one player, a cons

Re: [PECL-DEV] Debian request to change the PHP license for Extensions

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > Debian began to send requests to change PHP license for the PHP > > Extension arguing that the PHP License is only valid for PHP itself. > > That's like saying Apache license is only valid for Apache httpd, and > Mozilla license is

Re: Request for comment on license file

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:05:42PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > This is why the Free Software Foundation makes efforts to produce a > *General* Public License; one which can be generally applied to software > works, instead of inflating the number of incompatible licenses out there. Tangent: 'GPL' w

Re: Request for comment on license file

Francesco Poli writes: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote: > > I agree, that if Torque would be under GPL, it would be much easier > > to package it for Debian(and we won't have this thread) There are clear benefits for the copyright holder, also: The GNU GPL has benefited fr

Re: Request for comment on license file

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 +0100 Simon Kainz wrote: [...] > Hello! Hi! > > Sorry for the delay No problem. > and thank you very much for your efforts. You're welcome... :-) > > Am 2014-02-15 00:03, schrieb Francesco Poli: [...] > > I don't know whether this clause can be really called a

Re: Request for comment on license file

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello! Sorry for the delay and thank you very much for your efforts. Am 2014-02-15 00:03, schrieb Francesco Poli: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:39:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > >> Ben Finney writes: >> >>> 3. Redistributions in any form must be accom

Re: Request for comment on license file

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:39:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > > 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how > > to obtain > > complete source code for TORQUE and any modifications and/or additions > > to > > TORQUE. The source code must e

Re: Request for comment on license file

Ben Finney writes: > 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to > obtain > complete source code for TORQUE and any modifications and/or additions to > TORQUE. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be > available > for no

Re: Request for comment on license file

Ben Finney writes: > = >  TORQUE v2.5+ Software License v1.1 > > Copyright (c) 2010-2011 Adaptive Computing Enterprises, Inc. All rights > reserved. > > Use this license to use or redistribute the TORQUE software v2.5+ and later > versions. Unproblematic text explai

Re: Request for comment on license file

Simon Kainz writes: > I'd now kindly ask this list to take a look on the license file [1] > (only 84 lines :-) ) and tell me if this license prohibits packaging > torque 4.2.6.1 for Debian, which we are otherwise planning to do. It's helpful to include the license text here, so that later reader

Re: Request for comment on license file

Am Do 13 Feb 2014 12:24:20 schrieb Simon Kainz: > I'd now kindly ask this list to take a look on the license file [1] > (only 84 lines :-) ) and tell me if this license prohibits packaging > torque 4.2.6.1 for Debian, which we are otherwise planning to do. This license permits - tse and redistribu

Request for comment on license file

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello, we currently run 6 HPC cluster based on Debian/wheezy and torque. In Wheezy, torque is currently at 2.4.16 (as well as in unstable) which is dated July 27 2011 according to the website. The Torque website [0] states that 4.2.6.1 is availabl

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 17:12:46 + (UTC) Thorsten Glaser wrote: [...] > Francesco Poli paranoici.org> writes: > > > You asked whether it's still acceptable for Debian main: I answered by > > describing what the FTP Masters think > > Look, as I said above, that was 2008. Not the recent discussion

Re: [OT] Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On 02/09/13 21:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> MJ Ray phonecoop.coop> writes: >> > whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers >> > seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote >> > http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png > You know that l.d.o is not the

[OT] Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

MJ Ray phonecoop.coop> writes: > Well, we "hear" things like that every time someone doesn't agree about In this case I talked with other DDs on IRC. > whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers > seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote > http://list

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On 02/09/13 12:14, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Paul Wise debian.org> writes: >> Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have >> displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind > > Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not > holding Franc

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

Paul Wise debian.org> writes: > Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have > displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing. I’ve heard that France

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM, MJ Ray wrote: > On 01/09/13 18:12, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> //mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail) > > Well, I'm a DD too, I don't back that sort of disrespectful, sarcastic, > uncollaborative, overlong rant and yes, lurkers suppor

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

t the link to 2008 wasn't current, but it's still the current situation as far as I know. I didn't realise from http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org that the request was only interested in the last quarter-year. Maybe phrasing it more explicitly than &qu

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

MJ Ray writes: > Look, […] My reply was specifically to this newsgroup, a long-needed “request” to shut up, and explicitly *not* soliciting *your* personal(!) opinion on those licences either. I do not require the “added value”, and this newsgroup is spammed enough by the likes of you

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On 29/08/13 16:15, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Francesco, [stuff] Look, there's a command in email software for sending a reply to one person. "Reply to List" or "Reply to All" is not it - if anyone is going to lecture others on how "to improve your communication behaviour", start by using the corre

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:15:25 + (UTC) Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Francesco Poli paranoici.org> writes: [...] > > > > So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? > > > For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion: > > Francesco, I specifically did *not* ask for your personal opinion

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

Francesco Poli paranoici.org> writes: > In the recent discussions, the main concerns were about the switch of a Yes, I know, but the discussion was raised, so I wanted to make sure. > > > So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? > For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion: F

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:00:10 -0400 Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due > > to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. > > [...] In the recent discussions, the main

Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote: > > Hi, > > there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due > to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. > > I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at > least two points: > > • The inability to pro

AGPL request for summary of recent discussion

Hi, there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at least two points: • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software (embargoed fixes)/ • The

Re: Request review of cdrtools-3.0 for inclusion in Debian

Hi Eric, On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:20:22PM -0800, Eric Shattow wrote: > I seek clarification on how closely cdrtools-3.0 meets the Debian Free > Software Guidelines. > Web: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/cdrecord.html > Tarball: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/cdrtools-3.00.tar.gz > Would

Request review of cdrtools-3.0 for inclusion in Debian

Hello, I seek clarification on how closely cdrtools-3.0 meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Web: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/cdrecord.html Tarball: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/cdrtools-3.00.tar.gz Would an official debian legal representative please consider the cdrtools-3.0

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: > Are you saying that nothing inside a (complete) debian ISO image > containing GPLv2 software in executable form fulfills either the > 3.b) "written offer" or 3.c) "information you received" conditions > for distribution? That if I give someone a CDR with a >

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: > >I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a > >torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to > >e.g., an FTP REST or

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Stefan Hirschmann gmx.at> writes: > > Hi! > > Today I noticed a strang forum posting: [1] > > Short English summary: > - > A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a "Abmahnung" [2] to a person which >downloaded Debian using Bittorrent. > The company "Media Art Holland

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

> [...] > Calling the German lawyer to find out who are his client might be a > good idea. I heard from other sources, which I consider trustworthy, that this was discovered to be a fake letter, sent as a sort of bad joke. Therefore, the specific case is of no real interest, although I agree that

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Florian Weimer deneb.enyo.de> writes: > > * Stefan Hirschmann: > > > My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and > > the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this > > company. > > >From what I've read, it is not clear at all whether a lawyer actual

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Jeff Epler wrote: I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to e.g., an FTP REST or an HTTP byte-range request. It's not. Imagine that instead of torrenting the file

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

* Stefan Hirschmann: > My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and > the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this > company. >From what I've read, it is not clear at all whether a lawyer actually sent anything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

I'm trying to figure out how transmitting a range of bytes in a torrent is different than transmitting a range of bytes in response to e.g., an FTP REST or an HTTP byte-range request. Heck, consider one ethernet or PPP packet that contains just a part of the whole! Assuming that the file

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Ken Arromdee wrote: > [GPLv2, section 3] That section only applies if you got a > written offer. People who use Bittorrent to download (and therefore to > upload) Debian don't have a written offer, so they can't take advantage of > that clause. (Debian itself is, as you point out, distributing s

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Michael Poole wrote: How do you reconcile your claim with these sections of the GPLv2 and v3, both referring to an executable or object-code form of the work? GPLv2, section 3: You may "Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute correspondi

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Vincent Bernat wrote: >>> >>> The >>> problem is that on Bittorrent, everyone who downloads also uploads.  This >>> makes it illegal to download just a binary, since if you do that you're >>> also >>> uploading just a bina

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:57:22PM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote: >> or LaForge too may be good sources of information. > > Who? Harald Welte, founder of gpl-violations.org: http://gpl-violations.org/about.html#whois -- bye, pabs http:/

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:57:22PM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote: > Joerg Schilling You must be joking. We're looking for legal expertise, not reality distortion fields. > or LaForge too may be good sources of information. Who? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Ken Arromdee writes: > It's my understanding that in Germany lawyers can do this to copyright > violators even though they are not the copyright holder. This is not true. Under German competition law, someone can hire a lawyer to send a cease-and-desist letter to a competitor if they are gaining

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Joerg Schilling or LaForge too may be good sources of information. -- Sriram On 4/24/11, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:11:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> I agree. I'm cc'ing the DPL to see if the project can ask SPI-inc.org >> lawyers for assistance. Do we have access to

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Michael Wild wrote: The problem is that on Bittorrent, everyone who downloads also uploads. This makes it illegal to download just a binary, since if you do that you're also uploading just a binary, and uploading just a binary is a form of distribution the GPL doesn't allow.

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Vincent Bernat wrote: The problem is that on Bittorrent, everyone who downloads also uploads. This makes it illegal to download just a binary, since if you do that you're also uploading just a binary, and uploading just a binary is a form of distribution the GPL doesn't allo

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Op 24/04/2011 14:02, Stefano Zacchiroli schreef: I think the first step to do is to get hold of the original cease and desist mail. Has anyone managed to have it yet? This story sounds too absurd to be true. I've googled for the keywords "Media Art Holland" and I can't find the web site of that

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:11:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I agree. I'm cc'ing the DPL to see if the project can ask SPI-inc.org > lawyers for assistance. Do we have access to German legal expertise? I don't think it would be terribly useful to ask SPI for assistance, as they are mostly involved

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

MJ Ray schrieb: > Stefan Hirschmann wrote: >> Short English summary: >> - >> A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a "Abmahnung" [2] to a person which >>downloaded Debian using Bittorrent. >> The company "Media Art Holland b.v" claimed that she has the "Nutzungs >> und

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Stefan Hirschmann wrote: > Short English summary: > - > A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a "Abmahnung" [2] to a person which >downloaded Debian using Bittorrent. > The company "Media Art Holland b.v" claimed that she has the "Nutzungs > und Verwertungsrechte" (some

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On 04/24/2011 12:07 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Stefan Hirschmann wrote: >> The lawyer wants the poster to pay 700 Euro and stop uploading of Debian. >> - >> My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and >> the project should take

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du dimanche 24 avril 2011, vers 00:07, Ken Arromdee disait : >> The lawyer wants the poster to pay 700 Euro and stop uploading of Debian. >> - >> My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation >> and the project should take

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Stefan Hirschmann wrote: The lawyer wants the poster to pay 700 Euro and stop uploading of Debian. - My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this company. It'

Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Hi! Today I noticed a strang forum posting: [1] Short English summary: - A lawyer from Augsburg, Germany sent a "Abmahnung" [2] to a person which downloaded Debian using Bittorrent. The company "Media Art Holland b.v" claimed that she has the "Nutzungs und Verwertungs

Re: Request for translation/evalutation (was: Fwd: Non-free artwork in games)

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:38, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The license states total freedom for the binaries, but it doesn't say > anything about the sources. Here goes a quick translation: Thanks. > So, more info about the sources of DIV32RUN.DLL is needed in order

Re: Request for translation/evalutation (was: Fwd: Non-free artwork in games)

El lun, 27-10-2008 a las 12:18 +0100, Richard Hartmann escribió: > Hi all, > > there has been a thread about the use of certain Spanish media CDs to > replace non-free artwork [1]. > Can anyone who actually understands Spanish chip in on the DSFG-freeness > of the licence below? > > The license

Request for translation/evalutation (was: Fwd: Non-free artwork in games)

Hi all, there has been a thread about the use of certain Spanish media CDs to replace non-free artwork [1]. Can anyone who actually understands Spanish chip in on the DSFG-freeness of the licence below? Thanks, Richard [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2008/10/msg7.html

Re: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#498475: Lenny-Ignore tag request for SNMP related bugs

The MIBs are not technically necessary for the SNMP protocol itself to work. In fact, most of the SNMP agent's functionality is just fine without installed MIBs. The command line clients, however, are far less useful (still usable, but much more of a pain for the operator). If you want to get r

Re: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#498475: Lenny-Ignore tag request for SNMP related bugs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Vincent, > I have just opened two bugs against libsmi-common and libsnmp-base: > http://bugs.debian.org/498476 > http://bugs.debian.org/498475 > > Those packages ship MIB files that are non-free (same license as IETF > RFC). However, there i

ms-sys removal request

Hello to debian legal mailing list, I think that the ms-sys package should be removed: Here there is the bug where I talked about this subject. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=425943 Here there is my explanation: My argument is the following one. I can make a

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Including that notice in the package long description would certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up such as to allow us to include a

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:40:43PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > > "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >>> 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which >>> they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on >>>

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipi

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:18:54PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal > requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK > because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) > anyway. ...unless it was a

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient rece

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:04:59PM +0100, Heikki Henriksen wrote: > However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a > look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to > confirm or disapprove of my conclusion. > > Trademark Guidelines [Lots of interesting but irr

Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

Hello debian-legal. Mugshot is an open project to create a live social experience around entertainment, and the mugshot-client integrates this into the linux-desktop. See http://mugshot.org for more info on this. The client is released under the terms of GPLv2, but Mugshot™ is also a trademark of

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs > > free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how > > to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) > > > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] > > > > This is England calling. > > Would the FSF have to sue under US

  1   2   3   4   5   >