On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:47:59PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
> removed as it was orphaned.
> I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
> terribly wrong with it.
> Can someone with more lic
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have
>>in licenses, however.
I suppose a lawyer would argue what is irrelevant at the moment may be very
relevant at a later time...good or ill it is safer to hedge than not, un
Hi,
The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
removed as it was orphaned.
I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
terribly wrong with it.
Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with
it?
I wouldn't min
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote:
> From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
> >>their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
> As I understand it choice of venue cla
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
>>their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
As I understand it choice of venue clauses are standard "boiler plate" language
in agreements regardless of w
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:28:23PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I fully understand that _may_ and _shall_ are different terms however,
> > and I will check on this, but I am pretty sure _may_ in this instance
> > is indicating _required._ Again I need to confer with someone to see
> > if licen
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Jennifer Brown wrote:
>
> I am new to this list, I arrived here by being interested in the
> Debian Women Project, so please forgive me if I am jumping in where my
> opinion is not wanted and if I am too long winded.
Hi, and welcome to debian-legal! :)
Scripsit "Jennifer Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection
> clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in
> court. Because there are many other factors (like minimum contacts,
> Long-Arm Statutes, foreseeability, supers
I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing
case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions.
A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to
do with international law.
In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about
this issue, I'
"Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL. I'm pretty sure it's unused, but
an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it.
This may be a problem if it is used, as:
Tha
The UCB advertising clause has been rescinded by the copyright owner.
See this authorization.
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
The advertising clause is no longer required and is deleted. With all
of the usual cautions about IANAL I believe it is enough to delete
Using the words 'This source code' rather than 'the source code' implies the
statement aplies to both the source and the data, which are often though of
together by programmers. I'm pretty sure that the GPL was intended to cover
the whole thing. Therefore if you are unable to ask for clarifica
"Mathias Weyland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
Some time ago I adopted the celestia package. The package contains
textures
which seem not to be DFSG free. (see bug #174456).
It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. I have two
options now
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been unable to contact Don Kneller so far, so I'm currently
> expecting to backport recent patches onto Noah's upstream version.
> Before I do that, I'd appreciate feedback on whether the text below
> is sufficient to explain the copyright and licensin
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> MJ Ray, please would you be so kind to add your pointers about MPL and IDPL
> at: http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html
It may appear there once the dust has settled on this discussion.
Its next stop should be legal/dlpl0509 if all goe
15 matches
Mail list logo
