On 09/27/2013 11:33 PM, Paul Elliott wrote:
> I have some ideas in my head that I am thinking about patenting, but I only
> want to torture the proprietary software people with it.
You can be a pain to proprietary software people by time-stamping the
normal open development process:
http://e
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.project as well.
Paul Elliott writes:
> 1)Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
> patents; Debian contributors should not package or distribute
> softwa
Paul Elliott writes:
> 1)Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
> patents; Debian contributors should not package or distribute
> software they know to infringe a patent.
This implies that software *covered* by patents, but not *encumbered* by
any patents,
Hi Paul,
Forwarding your message on to debian-project, which is where project
policies are discussed.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:33:44PM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote:
> Policy Statement
> 1)Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
> patents; Debian contributors
Policy Statement
1)Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
patents; Debian contributors should not package or distribute
software they know to infringe a patent.
2)Debian will not accept a patent license that is inconsistent
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:24:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowledge the
> virality of the GPL – Debian, AFAIK, tends to go more with
> the FSF’s extreme interpretation…
I don't think my view is out of line with the FSF's.
This applies to sour
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
>This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are
>you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply
>to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that
Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowl
Given the lack of specific mention of a different license for debian/*
in d/copyright, I think it's fair to say that debian/* was licensed
under CPL, whether intended or not. Still, upstream has changed to
EPL, and Soeren has refused to relicense his work under EPL (and has
offered GPL-3 as an alte
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:06:27PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>
> > So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into
> > a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK.
>
> Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers bui
Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
> So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into
> a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK.
Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the
input for the declarative dh* commands, pl
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> As far as I remember, a license change for the non-free Oracle Java
> some time ago made in non-redistributable by Linux distributions.
Indeed.
> However, news say Raspbian now includes Oracle Java [1]. I wonder: has
> anything changed in
Hello,
As far as I remember, a license change for the non-free Oracle Java
some time ago made in non-redistributable by Linux distributions.
However, news say Raspbian now includes Oracle Java [1]. I wonder: has
anything changed in Oracle Java licensing, or is it just an exception
Oracle made for
12 matches
Mail list logo
