Re: EPICS Open License

2005-12-18 Thread Josh Triplett
Carlo Segre wrote: > It seems to me that the EPICS Open License is DFSG Compliant. The only > difference from a BSD-type license is that the U.S. Govenment has a > nonexlusive irrevocable license and that any changes to the source must > contain a statement of such changes having been made. I agr

EPICS Open License

2005-12-18 Thread Carlo Segre
Hello All: It seems to me that the EPICS Open License is DFSG Compliant. The only difference from a BSD-type license is that the U.S. Govenment has a nonexlusive irrevocable license and that any changes to the source must contain a statement of such changes having been made. I include the

Re: QPL and non-free

2005-12-18 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Lars Bahner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So my Plan B is to stick these packages in non-free. Would that be > ok? Depends. What is their current license? The only information we have is that you have not been able to get a GPL license, but that tells nothing about which license they _do_ have.

QPL and non-free

2005-12-18 Thread Lars Bahner
Hi all, please cc: me as I am not subscribed to debian-legal. I have filed ITPs for some packages sancp, barnyard and sguil, all of which are somewhat interdependent. I might get sguil GPL'ed but it seems that there is a problem with sancp and barnyard, as their authors doesn't answer my email,

Re: Policy on code covered by patents but not compiled?

2005-12-18 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:42:33PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Consider the following situation: > * Code (say MPEG encoder code) is considered to be covered by patents > * Those patents are considered to be actively enforced > * Code implementing an MPEG encoder is shipped in a source package