Re: URLs for BSD licenses

Personally I think the Debian website is the wrong place to archive specific versions of licences for reference. Wikipedia, or maybe the Debian list archives would be more appropriate. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.o

Re: URLs for BSD licenses

Francesco Poli writes: > I've been missing a good (and stable) URL for the 3-clause BSD > license, since http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html > stopped working (it now redirects to a list of projects licensed > under 3-clause BSD, as known to the FSF software directory...). > > Does

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

Josselin Mouette writes: > Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 �Á� 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a �Á�crit : >> The only >> case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a >> package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of >> other cases, I would be interested to learn ab

Re: URLs for BSD licenses

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:32:37 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > * Francesco Poli: [...] > > I've been missing a good (and stable) URL for the 3-clause BSD license, > > The URL is not intended to be stable, and it used to refer to the > 4-clause BSD license: > >

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit : > The only > case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a > package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of > other cases, I would be interested to learn about them. There’s also the case of M

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

MJ Ray writes: > Hendrik Weimer wrote: >> It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other >> distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign, >> BTW. > > Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't find > a good study, but it might ex

Re: URLs for BSD licenses

* Francesco Poli: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:33:16 + MJ Ray wrote: > > [...] >> it claims to >> be "New BSD" which seems very untrue, comparing the S3.rb licence to >> http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license > > Wow! That's a very useful URL! > > I've been missing a good (and stable) URL for the

URLs for BSD licenses [was: Re: RFC: licence of ITP: s3sync-ruby]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:33:16 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] > it claims to > be "New BSD" which seems very untrue, comparing the S3.rb licence to > http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license Wow! That's a very useful URL! I've been missing a good (and stable) URL for the 3-clause BSD license, since http

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

On Sunday 11 January 2009 15:22:25 MJ Ray wrote: > Hendrik Weimer wrote: > > It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other > > distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign, > > BTW. > > Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't f

Re: RFC: licence of ITP: s3sync-ruby

Florian Weimer wrote: > * MJ Ray: > > > 3. is the licence any obstacle to meeting DFSG? > > It doesn't mention the act of running the program or using it. > Or does this activity fall under "display"? The licence does mention using it, in "Your use of this software code is at your own risk ...",

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

Hendrik Weimer wrote: > It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other > distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign, > BTW. Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't find a good study, but it might exist. I found some evidence

Re: bash completion script licensing

In message <87iqomapdk@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes * Anthony W. Youngman: The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, "further restrictions" are not allowed. So having source code is not sufficient for compliance. Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't hav