On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >
> >The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend
> >for (mostly-)non-program files?
>
> Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (n
On 2004-03-04 22:15:27 + Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...license for cryptlib...]
Except for proper names, this is identical to the license for
the libdb4.0 package, which is already in Debian main.
Sleepycat have published clarificatio
On 2004-03-05 00:03:34 + Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seeing as they didn't reply I'm attaching the message I received from
them in response to my initial email.
Thanks. I think we tried to give them the desired explanation of why
there are problems (because they changed a stateme
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:18:57PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:04:22AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > "Redo my work, Branden"?
>
> No, I think them making statements directly here is more effective than
> me relaying them. Like I said in another email. If they don't answer
> b
Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Ben Goodger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Eric Dorland wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Ben,
>> >
>> >
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> I'm replying to this including our QA person, Asa Dotzler who is
>> interested in these matters.
> [snip]
>>
>> Asa will comment more here.
>>
>> >The other issue t
On Mar 4, 2004, at 17:53, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Copyright 1992-2004 Peter Gutmann. All rights reserved.
This "All rights reserved" followed by a "go nuts" licence always
seems to
jar with me. Does anyone else have the same cognitive dissonance
whenever
they read one of these?
No, just ig
On Mar 4, 2004, at 13:43, Marek Habersack wrote:
Hey all,
As in subject -
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Please always post license conditions to the mailing list, not just
URLs.
Here is a copy-and-paste job:
cryptlib is distributed under a dual license th
On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend
for (mostly-)non-program files?
Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (nearly
the same) or the GPL.
[ The 2-clause BSD is the one without the advertisi
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:58:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> David Gourdelier wrote:
> >I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
> >included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
> >http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
>
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...license for cryptlib...]
Except for proper names, this is identical to the license for
the libdb4.0 package, which is already in Debian main.
--
Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
"It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
> What makes it more "serious" this time, is the heading - which says
> "usage conditions" - that's a pretty strong statement.
Yeah, but this is on a website, not the actual code. What matters are
the copyright statements on the code and the license that
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:06:20PM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B,
> > with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A
> > being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
> if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B,
> with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A
> being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class that descends from a class
> defined in B), A being MPL and B being GPL?
If
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:53:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
> > > You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that
> > > is incompatible with the GPL to c
Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's fine, but read what does the copyright say exactly:
>
> Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License
> Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even
> more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL.
>
>
> OK, the thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the
> Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not
> compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. The license is a BSD one,
> that's clear, but the terms of use and usage conditions seem to restrict the
On 2004-03-04 19:03:49 + David Gourdelier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're unable to comply with the above license then the following,
alternate usage conditions apply:
Irrelevant if "the above license" is free, isn't it?
On 2004-03-04 18:58:55 + Humberto Massa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apparently, the license (text below) is a BSD-sans-advertising -like.
More
eyes, please:
Clauses 1 and 2 are identical to BSD. Clause 3 is entirely different.
3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by informa
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
> > You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that
> > is incompatible with the GPL to create a derivative work under the GPL
> > unless you yourself are the copyr
So it means there is no legal problems for a cryptlib package ? My
wondering was more about this statement and the link with points 5 and 6 of the Debian social contract:
If you're unable to comply with the above license then the following,
alternate usage conditions apply:
Any large
David Gourdelier wrote:
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently, the license (t
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
[snip]
> > It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
> > software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in
> > many projects it distributes (like mozilla, php, apache to name the
> > most pro
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:39:59PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
> >Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >>>It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
David Gourdelier wrote:
Hi list,
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently, t
Hey all,
As in subject - http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
can the software be used/distributed in Debian?
thanks,
marek
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently, the license (text below) is a BSD-sans-adve
Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
projects
it distri
Hi list,
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
--
David Gourdelier
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Just a reminder]
>
> While we are here talking about the Mozilla Firefox case, don't forget
> Debian distributes Mozilla and Mozilla Thunderbird as well, in the
> same conditions.
>
> Mike
I would be interested to see a comparison of the Mozilla trademar
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
> > It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
> >software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
> >projects
> >it distributes (like mozil
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
> I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to
> join yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between,
> so I will take the liberty to ask my question here.
In cases like these, please set Mail-Followup-To: so you'll b
Marek Habersack wrote:
Hey all,
I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to join
yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between, so I will
take the liberty to ask my question here.
You are right, your questions are better asked in debian-legal, with a
Aiya!
LB> Was "general" a common term in licenses then? It does seem that
LB> general (, generally) are regularly used by Mr. Stallman,
LB> What about "public"? Were "public licenses" common?
"Public" is a common legal term indeed. It is used for agreements.
"Public license" is a particular ca
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:52:36PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> > The legal terms are not copyrightable;
>
> In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v
> SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the
> protect
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:54:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The legal documents, *as applied to a particular package*, must be
> retained verbatim. But the law itself doesn't prevent me from taking
> the GPL, modifying it, and using the modified version as a license for
> my own package.
>
>
[Just a reminder]
While we are here talking about the Mozilla Firefox case, don't forget
Debian distributes Mozilla and Mozilla Thunderbird as well, in the same
conditions.
Mike
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:08:56AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote:
> > I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
> > However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
> > http://opencontent.org
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. For many cases, I'm
> afraid, this would simply end up taking up most of our time following
> the forms of producing summaries. My judgement was that there is no
> real controversy
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:07:18AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
> > say on the subject:
>
> Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
>
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:24:21AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:34:41AM -0700, Joe Moore wrote:
> > Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > As I said in my mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > >4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
> > > >Techno
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:41:31PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We have some concerns about this clause as well.
> >
> > 6) What does "or otherwise" mean? It would seem to include all forms of
> > communication other than advertis
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:28:38PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:15:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Well, no, I didn't know what you meant, actually; I try to make as few
> > assumptions as possible, especially when it comes to the opinions
> > people who have only re
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:43:27AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I think that this captures why I, at least, am a bit uncomfortable with
> your analysis. I haven't looked in any detail at the license, so I've
> mostly stayed out of this discussion. But I do think that as a matter
> of method, th
43 matches
Mail list logo
