OT: Humor: Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as it's > DFSG-free". Do you see how it could be read that way? You sound just like Henry Ford. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tomcat.deb is illegal in debian
The upstream license for tomcat is the Apache License. The maintainer, however, has licenses his modifications under the GPL. However, according to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses, the Apache license is not compatible with the GPL. This means we can't distribute the tomcat deb, until such changes are relicensed. It also means that if the tomcat maintainer has accepted patches on behalf of tomcat, he needs to check with the original patch submitters, as the license of those patches is in question(are they under Apache, or GPL?).
Re: tomcat.deb is illegal in debian
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Stefan Gybas wrote: > Thanks for pointing this out. I have relicensed my changes under the Apache > license and will upload a fixed package in a couple of minutes after some > testing. The reason I brought this up on debian-legal, is that there could be many such packages that have this problem, and I wanted those on this list to comment about it.
Re: distributable but non-free documents
> No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must > be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse > into primeval chaos. Too late. :)
Re: Invoice? [was: Fashion Photographer's portfolio-Paris]
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear all, > > ObPrivate: I'd like a discussion about how we can exploit the $1999 > advertisement fee on Debian lists. (I'll leave it to debian-legal to > figure out if the fee is legally valid. :) > > I received this mail six (6) times so we could invoice could invoice this > company $11,994! Just too good to miss. > > Did we ever invoice anyone for advertising on our list? Why has no law > firm yet jumped on the hugely profitable idea of handling Debian invoicing > for a small fee of, say, 10% ? > > It would be really great to start invoicing in a systematic way -- *that* > would make positive noise about the spam issue! :) Actually, with all the lists I am on(and my fetchmail log tailer), I saw 13 copies go by. === 2861 .linux/.debian/.changes/devel-changesUploaded jikes 1.10-6 (m68k) to erlangen === BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK- BEGIN PGP INFO Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -END PGP INFO-
