Le Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 01:26:55PM -0500, Joey Hess a écrit :
> Riku Voipio wrote:
> > I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list
> > of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material.
> > Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation
> >
Riku Voipio wrote:
> I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list
> of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material.
> Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation
> (such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will
> not
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:34:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with
> advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors,
I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list
of attributions needed to
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
> lists.]
Indeed.
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The version in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is very specifically the
>> UCB version,
> A m
[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
lists.]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
> > information. There was more
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
> information. There was more than one "BSD" license in use well before
> USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version.
[snip]
While this is very interestin
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> Am I missing something?
> This ?
> http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
> http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/m
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence
> predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the
> advertising clause in July of 1999 and the D
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Am I missing something?
This ?
http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable
> license.
>
> DFSG http://www.debian.org/social_contract> §10:
>
> 10. Example Licenses
>
> The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> we consider fre
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered
> by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of
> least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable
> licenses in the DFSG.
The 4-clause BSD license
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with
> advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors,
> who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should
> remeber that for other aspects of licencing a
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:44:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such
> > licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory
> > read all the copyright files t
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such
> licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory
> read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this
> reason, I wouldn't recommend to incl
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon a écrit :
>
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> software must display the following acknowledgement:
> This produ
On 06/02/2008, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Just to make this clear […]
Yep, thank you (all) for clarifying that, sorry for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgpFkxYGMPJdq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi Jean!
You wrote:
> I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
> following statements:
> --
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:46:23PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
> > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> > software must display the following acknowledgement:
> > This product includes software developed at t
This one time, at band camp, Cyril Brulebois said:
> On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
> > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> > software must display the following acknowledgement:
> > This product includes software developed at the University of
[Please follow up to -legal only. Full quote for the benefit of -legal.]
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
Hi,
I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
following statements:
--
1. Redistributions of source code must r
On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> software must display the following acknowledgement:
> This product includes software developed at the University of
> Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories.
On Jun 25, David Frey wrote
> > *smile* Some german people have problems understanding swiss people, too.
> > :-)
>
> *smile* But only if they live too far in the north. Our Bavarian neighbours
> don't have this problem at least. >;-)
you can understand a bavarian ? hey, most german can't do t
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 23:08 +0200 Martin Schulze writes:
> David Frey writes:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
> > > Any comments?
> > (Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
> > reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 22:08 BST James Troup writes:
> David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > * Das Aendern des Dokuments ist nicht erlaubt. Das gilt sowohl
> > >fuer den Inhalt als auch fuer das Dateiformat bzw. die
> > >Gestaltung. Auch das Entfernen unliebsamer Passagen i
David Frey wrote:
>PS: Has somebody found a good online dictionary? (A dictionary e.g.
>French/English, German/English, not only a word-list)
http://www2.echo.lu/edic/, the technical dictionary published by the
General Directorate XIII of the European Union, is great. You can chose
source an
David Frey writes:
>
> On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
> > Any comments?
> (Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
> reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g.
> dutch or polish])
*smile* Some german people have problems understa
On Mon, Jun 23 1997 7:25 BST Marco Budde writes:
> Any comments?
(Please add next time a translated version too, not everyone
reads natively german [I'd had a hard time to understand e.g.
dutch or polish])
> Copyright
> =
>
> Dieses Dokument ist Freeware im Sinne des Software-L
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Michael Meskes wrote:
> The way I read it the copyright just forbids to change the doc files
> itself. There is no problem adding our packages files etc. Even renaming
> the source tree is not forbidden.
>
> So I'd say put it in the core distribution.
No, I disagree here. At
The way I read it the copyright just forbids to change the doc files
itself. There is no problem adding our packages files etc. Even renaming
the source tree is not forbidden.
So I'd say put it in the core distribution.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager| topsystem Systemhaus Gmb
From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Kees Lemmens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yep, as long as the CDROM's are sold for reasonable prices: all software on
> these distributions is free, so they only should be paid for their efforts
> to put it on the CD's. I think a maximum of approx. 20-25 $ coul
On 3 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright
> issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent is
> basically to keep companies from charging for it...) Below is the
> copyright file I'm distributing with it:
[...]
Th
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Redistribution of
> modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
This sentence is still problematic. We are distributing modified
binaries and files to modify the source (though not actually
distributing modified source).
Guy
--
T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> From: Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
>
> That puts it in non-free.
OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright
issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent
On 1 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> >
> > > Non-free it is
> >
> > No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed)
> > _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into n
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
>
> > Non-free it is
>
> No. If the author forbids distribution a changed (i.e. bug fixed)
> _binary_ version, I think the package may not even go into non-free.
>
> What do the others think?
Before we
From: Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
That puts it in non-free.
> Redistribution of modified versions by other people than myself is not
> allowed.
That too. We are going to start supporting unmodified source + Debian
deltas, but never unmodified
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> > On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> >
> > > A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
> > >
> > > Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
> >
> > This puts the package into non-free. However...
> >
> > > Redistribution of
> >
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
>
> Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed. Redistribution of
> modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
> However, commercial use is no problem as long as the software
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> Yes, if a modifying the package isn't allowed, then it cannot go
> into the main archive, and has to go into non-free, even if you're
> allowed to make money distributing it.
If modifying the package isn't allowed, it can't go anywhere! You
better wr
> On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
> >
> > Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
>
> This puts the package into non-free. However...
>
> > Redistribution of
> > modified versions by other people than myself is not allowe
On 31 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> A program I am packaging has a copying policy as follows:
>
> Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
This puts the package into non-free. However...
> Redistribution of
> modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
We need at least
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 21.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Take the public domain part and put it in one package. Take the
> non-free part and put it in another package. You already knew this but
> I said it as context for the following:
>
> Contact the author and ask them to i
Take the public domain part and put it in one package. Take the
non-free part and put it in another package. You already knew this but
I said it as context for the following:
Contact the author and ask them to issue the following more-legaly-correct
license _only_ on the public domain part:
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This all seems ok except for maybe the export restrictions section. We don't
> have a non-Cuba-Yugoslavia-Hati-Iran-Iraq-North-Korea-and-Syria section like
> we have a non-us section.. so does abuse belong in non-free or on some
> us-only ftp site, or what?
Jim Pick:
> > Restrictions :
> >Crack dot Com retains ownership of the Abuse Trademark and data sets.
>
> What does data sets mean?
I think it means the levels, sounds, artwork, etc that the abuse engine
uses.
> Sounds like the libs can go into the free section. Cool.
If by "libs" you mea
> Crack dot Com has decided to release abuse as public domain software. So no
> more a.out abuse, once I get the new one built. But I do have a couple of
> questions about their copyright:
>
> This release is to the public domain, meaning there are very few
> restrictions in on use. But here a
46 matches
Mail list logo
