Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:42:54PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Not that I can recall. I have encountered one, but only one, project > that explicitly invoked this clause but I can't recall whether it > arose out of a license compatibility issue or simply a desire to > upgrade to GPL for its own

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:29:28PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:07:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of > > LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of > > LGPLv2.x > > >

MPL2.0 Linking with OpenSSL

Hi, I'm trying to convince an upstream maintainer to add a GPL exception to their program that links to OpenSSL. They have been cooperative, but they don't want to have long license text in individual files. The MPL2.0 does not require such long text by itself, so I was thinking of recommending t

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:07:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of > LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of > LGPLv2.x > > (even though its requirements are almost never followed in > any relevant s

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:25:08PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > Also keep in mind GPLv3+ and LGPLv2.1 (hard) are not compatable. Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of LGPLv2.x (even though its

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:39PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > What about interoperability of Apache2 with LGPL2.1? Here's a GPL-centric image to show off license interop with common licenses: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-REQ3wEST4I/TEc2k263n-I/Afo/lpwAI5Twml8/s1600/quick-guide-gplv3-comp

Re: Trilinos licensing

What about interoperability of Apache2 with LGPL2.1? I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer. After all, "public domain is not a license and the copyright holder may choose to retract the software from PD at any moment" . The "Bis

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:59:06PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > Both of those licenses sound great and compatable. Provided it's not > > BSD-4. > > It's 3-clause, so we're good. Great :) > > https://www.debian.org/social_contract > > > > contains the DFSG, our guidelines for free software wor

Re: Trilinos licensing

> Both of those licenses sound great and compatable. Provided it's not > BSD-4. It's 3-clause, so we're good. > https://www.debian.org/social_contract > > contains the DFSG, our guidelines for free software works that are fit > for Debian's main archive section. I checked all licenses on

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:30:38AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Due to the above, I'm going to be watching the progress of > Unteralterbach's packaging very closely in the coming months, as well > as opposing this every step of the way. If this actually makes it into > the NEW queue, I have no hes

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > (I could disable certain subpackages if the licensing does not > concur with Debian's policies.) Whoops, missed this part. Both the binaries and source package must also comply with these terms - which is to say, nonfree stuff in the

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > Unfortunately, Trilinos' licensing is not exactly straightforward. Alas; this happens. > Most of it is BSD-licensed, part of if LGPL, with some contributions > of other licenses mixed in; Both of those licenses sound great and comp

Trilinos licensing

Hi all, I'm about to create a Debian package for Trilinos, an extensive collection of numerical tools developed at the Sandia National Labs. Unfortunately, Trilinos' licensing is not exactly straightforward. Most of it is BSD-licensed, part of if LGPL, with some contributions of other licenses mi

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:07:20AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2014-03-14 9:59 GMT+01:00 Jo Shields : > > *TRIGGER WARNING* in case it wasn't painfully obvious for this thread by > > now. > > Thanks for the warning. Just for the record, I can confirm that there > has been people already triggered

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

2014-03-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Vincent Cheng : > (If replying to me via debian-women or debian-legal, please cc me as > I'm not subscribed to those lists.) > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > >> 3) Up to now, there hasn't been an actual proposal of package to even >> discuss, so

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

(If replying to me via debian-women or debian-legal, please cc me as I'm not subscribed to those lists.) On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 3) Up to now, there hasn't been an actual proposal of package to even > discuss, so the whole debate is abstract and I don't think anyone

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

2014-03-14 9:59 GMT+01:00 Jo Shields : > *TRIGGER WARNING* in case it wasn't painfully obvious for this thread by > now. Thanks for the warning. Just for the record, I can confirm that there has been people already triggered by all this situation. We can't forget that, as the "global prevalence of

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

*TRIGGER WARNING* in case it wasn't painfully obvious for this thread by now. On 14/03/14 02:21, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: > Gunnar Wolf writes: > >> Jo Shields dijo [Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:34:59PM +]: >>> Let's be very, very, very clear then. >>> >>> This is a game where you play a paedo