Re: python-imaging

2009-02-25 Thread Greg Harris
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:21:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault writes: > > > Ben Finney wrote: > > > Greg Harris writes: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. > > > Instead, the wording is: > > > > > > Permission

Re: python-imaging

2009-02-25 Thread Ben Finney
Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > Greg Harris writes: > > [snip] > > > > But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. > > Instead, the wording is: > > > > Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby > > granted, > > > I

Re: python-imaging

2009-02-25 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:31:10PM -0500, Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: >> Greg Harris writes: >> But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. >> Instead, the wording is: >> Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby >> g

Re: python-imaging

2009-02-25 Thread Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault
Ben Finney wrote: Greg Harris writes: [snip] But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’. Instead, the wording is: Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, I find that wording rather ambiguous, in my mind it could mean any of the

Re: Bug#509287: Please give opinion about "Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free"

2009-02-25 Thread MJ Ray
Koen Holtman wrote: > [...] For Debian I hope that this note will help Debian close > "Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free". So I would like to invite > debian-legal to read the note and discuss what it means for the afio > package bug. In general, I am unhappy with how the issues have been p

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > > Even the FSF considers it free. > > The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms a

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > > - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered > > non-free > > No. Ah, OK. Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses an

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
Adrian Bunk writes: > - the 3-clause BSD license is considered free > - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered > non-free I don't think this holds. The advertising clause in the 4-clause BSD license is GPL incompatible according to ('Original BSD license'): http:/

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Benjamin M. A'Lee
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > - the 3-clause BSD license is considered free > - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered > non-free > - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in > /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered > non-free No. Even the FSF considers it free. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from pla

Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Adrian Bunk
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising clause in its exact wording Does OpenSS