Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-15 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 08:41:08AM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > Maybe taking derived code (e.g. including new code), one could write only > the license of aggregate work (thus one "later" license), I think so. I agree it could be better to list them explicitly, but upstream doesn't want that

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-14 Thread Giacomo Catenazzi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Millan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:19PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: >> License and copyright are one and the same. >> >> GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open >> source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-10 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:19PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > License and copyright are one and the same. > > GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open > source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or LGPL. Without copyright, > the license is meaningless. Without lic

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-09 Thread Adam Majer
Robert Millan wrote: >> And so on. "* Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere" is simply false, > > Alright. So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting > with "The new file seems to be asserting..." above). > > Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem,

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-08 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:30:30PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > > > > If there's a problem, we'll get it sorted out, but I need more specific > > info on your findings; the example you pasted shows a file with nor > > copyright statement neither license information (from tomboy) and one > > with bo

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-08 Thread Jo Shields
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 21:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > Hi Jo, > > Nice to see your newly found interest in C++ packages (though, not > completely unexpected) :-) Nothing wrong with C++ in moderation. My last ITP was a C++ browser plugin. > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Jo Shields

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

2009-04-08 Thread Robert Millan
Hi Jo, Nice to see your newly found interest in C++ packages (though, not completely unexpected) :-) On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > Please note that this project in its current form contains swathes of > major copyright violations and cannot be uploaded to Debian -