Hi,
[[ Please Cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed ]]
I'm looking at packaging up elfsign, see WNPP #247427.
This is licensed under the Artistic license, however uses OpenSSL's engine.h
to build. Does this present any issues?
regards
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 04 May 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> A few packages contain "software" (well, everything's software these
>> days) which is cryptographically protected against modification.
>> This seems to violate DFSG §3.
>
> Uh, if you're refering to the PGP
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > > The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to
> > > > physical access o
THERE IS NO NEED TO BROWSE THE COMPETITION, WE HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED RIGHT HERE AT THE LOW2EST PRICES AND GIVE YOU FREE SHI>PPING.
Are generic drugs safe?
Yes. Due to strict regulations on the generic drug industry, these drugs must provide the same
therapeutic effect as the brand name drug.
IntelliQuote Mail Security detected an executable file in a message sent to
ListServ from your address. Executable files often contain viruses. For this
reason, this mail and its attached file were automatically deleted.
If you intended to send this person a file and feel this action was in erro
Buy your drug of choice, NO prescription required
Today's special: Free overnight Fedex delivery
Vicodin.$2.56/dose
Hydrocodone$2.16/dose
Xanax...$2.57/dose
Valium..$2.67/dose
Phentermine..$0.80/dose
Stock is limit
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 02:10:59AM +0200, Marc Fargas (TeLeNiEkO) wrote:
> Hi folks. I'm working on a php application that is licensed under the LGPL
> license but I need to include a few files from http://pear.php.net that are
> licensed under the PHP license.
>
> Then the question is: Can I redi
Hi folks. I'm working on a php application that is licensed under the LGPL
license but I need to include a few files from http://pear.php.net that are
licensed under the PHP license.
Then the question is: Can I redistribute those PHP licensed files with my
LGPL application?
Thanks a lot!
Thank You for your e-mail. Our e-mail hours are Monday thur Friday 8 am to 5
pm. We will answer all e-mails as soon as we can.
Your HWAS Team
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> > > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > > pages of the securit
Burnes, James wrote:
(1) Everytime the kernel invokes kmod, the kmod team brays about how
great they are.
(2) Everytime someone opens a dynamic library, it shouts about how great
it is.
(3) Everytime your email program starts up, it delays for 20 seconds
while it advertises for the team. Of cour
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:00:57PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-05-03 19:41:30 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> > >under GPL.
> >
> > People fork them and create compe
It disturbs me that such a great piece of software engineering like
ReiserV3 and V4 is sullied by licensing arguments about whether someone
is going to plagiarize them.
I imagine that nearly all software engineers would be horrified at the
thought of stealing the Reiser3 and 4 code and representin
I think a bit of confusion's developed as to just what people are
after. That's silly & stupid, so I'm going to try to be very precise
(anal, even) about language in this message. Be warned. ;)
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a difference between free software and plagiariza
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:54, Hans Reiser wrote:
> When you go to the opera, they don't come on stage and say buy XYZ, but
> they do say something prominent on the brochure like "we thank the
> generous ABC corporation for making this evening happen". Debian should
> follow that model, it works
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:52:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Debian significantly restricts use (not just modification or
> >redistribution) of what is in that file. There is no question that
> >the rules for the official use logo fail the DFSG. The only way I can
> >see for Debian to f
On 2004-05-04 18:40:49 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is moving away
from XFree86.
They don't want to attribute. It is contrary to the distro brand
awareness
monopilization interest.
I look forward t
Wouter Vanden Hove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html
>
>
> "When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be purged
>from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3)."
>
> This is an unalienable moral r
Arnoud Engelfriet said on Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:00:57PM +0200,:
> No, people would be forced to license their work under GPL or
> develop alternative standard libraries.
I do not see anything such a view in the English version. All thsi
document says is,
`you can reverse engineer so as t
On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable
in the
view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive statement of what actually happened? The
bug report 1525
When you go to the opera, they don't come on stage and say buy XYZ, but
they do say something prominent on the brochure like "we thank the
generous ABC corporation for making this evening happen". Debian should
follow that model, it works and is morally right to do.
MJ Ray wrote:
XFree86 and I want our software to be free but not plagiarizable.
Great! I look forward to you both fixing your licences.
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable in
the view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Assault is
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable
> software. The two are orthogonal concepts.
>
> Debian wants software to be both free and plagiarizable. XFree86 and
> I want our software to be free but not plagiarizable. In general, I
> w
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-04 09:20]:
I sent them a thanks for being brave enough to take on the task of
changing licensing mores and forcing distros to attribute, and I got
a response.;-)
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You miss the point. I get plenty of credit because of the filesystem
> name. It is everybody else who gets shortchanged unless we print a
> randomly chosen 1 paragraph credit at mkreiser4 time.
I'm not a Debian developer. But I don't understand your ea
On 2004-05-04 18:02:28 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable
software.
There is a difference between free software and forced-advert
software, too. There is also the difference between a duck.
Debian wants software to be
* Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-04 09:20]:
> I sent them a thanks for being brave enough to take on the task of
> changing licensing mores and forcing distros to attribute, and I got
> a response.;-)
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is moving away
from XFree86.
--
M
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable software.
The two are orthogonal concepts.
Debian wants software to be both free and plagiarizable. XFree86 and I
want our software to be free but not plagiarizable. In general, I want
software to not be plagiarizable, as I think
On 2004-05-04 17:20:56 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand why they lost interest in talking to persons who cannot
grasp
that distros removed mention of them from their man pages and this
was wrong.
That's actually irrelevant in that case. Their advertising clause is
a
Niklas Vainio wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 06:10:06PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>
>> > xzx's license forbids modification but we have a diff of over 30 kB. It
>> > looks like it's undistributable in the current form. See bug 240941.
>>
>>Where is the license text available?
>
>
> All pack
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
It seems an apt description of how some XFree86 developers reacted to
questions. They went dumb. Other XFree86 developers were helpful, but
they are not the reason I plan to stop using it, so I do not blame them.
I understand why they lost interest in talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
thanks for the suggesstions regarding my "license problems". I´ve read
through the licenses you suggested and I personally prefer the MIT
license [1]. This license is short, easy to understand (even for
"license outsiders" like me :-) ) and i.e. y
Apologies for being out-of-thread, but the message hasn't reached me
yet.
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
"When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be
purged
from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3)."
This is an unalienable moral right in most
You miss the point. I get plenty of credit because of the filesystem
name. It is everybody else who gets shortchanged unless we print a
randomly chosen 1 paragraph credit at mkreiser4 time.
Hans
Chris Dukes wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:49:10PM +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
[SNEEPAGE]
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:35:12AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, that certainly is an option. Relocating the credits to somewhere
reasonable for a particular installer is just fine with me.
Let's see what the Debian people say about showing the complete credi
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> "When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be purged
>from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3)."
>
> This is an unalienable moral right in most of Europe. If this is DFSG
> non-free, then Debian has a serious probl
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:56:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Rememer that an "ad-clause" usually does not render a work non-free,
> > just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
>
> An "ad-clause" usually applies to documentation or
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:18:51PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> You really need to look at an "as amended" copy of the act. One such
> copy is at http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm
Thanks, that's a good reference, and the changes from the version I was
looking at were... rather extensive.
How
Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Recall that the Creative Commons Attribution license was ruled to be
DFSG-non-free by debian-legal (initial review request at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00267.html
, final
On 2004-05-04 15:00:57 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
European
law wasn't as developed as US law by this time (1991).
As I'm sure you know, European law is not an homogenous whole, so
occasionally there are harmonisation and generalisation parts in
directives. You can fi
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[you seem to have attributed my words to Manoj -- but we are different
people]
> On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >"obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
> > you make or di
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-03 19:41:30 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> >under GPL.
>
> People fork them and create competition?
No, people would be forced to license their work under GPL or
develop alte
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:41:30PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > A dominant market player could use the GPL in an abusive way.
> > For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> > under GPL.
>
> After thinking about a number of scenarios, I don't thin
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 06:10:06PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > xzx's license forbids modification but we have a diff of over 30 kB. It
> > looks like it's undistributable in the current form. See bug 240941.
>
> Where is the license text available?
All packages have a link to their license
The OSL (Open Software License) v2.0 is not a DFSG free license.
- Item #5 "External Deployment" places distribution-like burdens on
deployment. E.g., when the Work is made available for use over a
network source must be distributed. This is a use restriction. While
the DFSG does not exp
Niklas Vainio said on Tue, May 04, 2004 at 02:59:08PM +0300,:
> xzx's license forbids modification but we have a diff of over 30 kB. It
> looks like it's undistributable in the current form. See bug 240941.
Where is the license text available?
--
+~+
Fabian Bastin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just a little question.
>
>> If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends
>> the GPL v2.0.
>
> What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
> strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply lin
On May 1, 2004, at 05:40, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non
free...
No, that's not true. The idea of TCP/IP is free --- an idea can't be
covered by copyright, and there is AFAIK no patent being actively
enforced on it. A partic
On Apr 30, 2004, at 23:06, Michael Poole wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in the software section,
Depends
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
> > >
> > > http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
> > >
> > > I'll edit it as is
On May 3, 2004, at 01:57, Raul Miller wrote:
Sure -- imagine that there exists a clause in the terms of some
copyright
which prohibited the distribution of some class of modification to some
part of the work which very clearly wasn't the source code to a
program.
FYI, we've had a discussion
On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
"obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
you make or distribute"
In other words, clause isn't about copying, but about "further
copying".
I read it as:
(obstruct OR control) (the reading OR further cop
debian-legal,
xzx's license forbids modification but we have a diff of over 30 kB. It
looks like it's undistributable in the current form. See bug 240941.
Please comment.
Thanks,
- Nikke
--
Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rememer that an "ad-clause" usually does not render a work non-free,
> just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
An "ad-clause" usually applies to documentation or advertising supplied with
the software, not the software package
On 2004-05-04 03:13:15 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Recall that the Creative Commons Attribution license was ruled to be
DFSG-non-free by debian-legal [...]
Thank you for making me aware of this.
On 2004-05-04 07:28:49 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no: what's news is that the copy of 91/EC/250 on which i based the
entire justification for the reverse engineering necessary for samba
to interoperate with windows nt domains has DISAPPEARED.
As I understand
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Sadly, your "invariant section"-inspired changes to the GPL cause
> other problems, which seem similar to combining an ad-clause licence
> with the GPL.
Rememer that an "ad-clause" usually does not render a work non-free,
just incompatible with the GPL.
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-03 22:53:05 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions about
>>
>> ^^^
>> Hey, can you do anything else but insult people?
>
>
> I'm n
On Tue, 04 May 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Does anyone know if the latest version of the Apache Software
> License still retains these terms?
No, thankfully Apache Source License v 2.0 ditched them for the more
sane (and more to the point) §6:
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant p
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 12:33:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ideas and principles are not copyrightable ever, are they? They are
> the wrong side of the idea-expression boundary. Copyright only covers
> expressions.
>
> This is not news.
no: what's news is that the copy of 91/EC/250 on which i ba
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 04:46:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
> > > *may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
> > > *permission o
[I am not subscribed to -www.]
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:49:22AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, the GFDL is quite clear: you aren't allowed distribute on an
> > encypted medium even if it's accompanied by a freely readable medium -- you
63 matches
Mail list logo
