On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:07:19PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> >So even if you managed to build it entirely with free tools at some
> >later date, this issue alone would relegate it to contrib until
> >suitably free data is available - or at lea
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:53:21PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> That's my understanding. I've forwarded the question to the Mersenne
> forum for confirmation.
Even if I'm wrong, the legal issues would be between the user and
PrimeNet/GIMPS. glucas itself is GPL software th
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:09AM +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote:
> What exactly is glucas relation to GIMPS, especially the non-free terms
> decribed in http://www.mersenne.org/prize.htm ?
Those terms apply "if you find such a prime with the software provided".
glucas is third party software. It
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 01:05:30PM +0900, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> Above license closes DFSG. But it restricts redistributing modified code.
> Therefore epo should go to non-free section.
Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin fun
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> I'm worried about the 'without fee' part. Does this translate into:
>
> - You don't have to pay any royalties to the Mathematisch Centrum if you
> use this code,
> or
> - If you use this code, you may not charge any money for it?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 10:48:14PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> So far nobody's making a big deal about the patents on the DivX encoding,
> but that could change. Debian has an unwritten and unevenly enforced
> policy of rejecting software implementing a patent or placing it into
> non-free regar
I would like to package Mplayer with the ffmpeg modifications that
allow it to play DivX videos without non-free code. The upstream code
of Mplayer includes OpenDivx which is non-free and I am willing to
strip this code from it in favor of the ffmpeg code if the OpenDivx
license is not changed soon
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 07:02:07PM -0700, Sam Powers wrote:
> I already knew that about hxd's maintainer. I think he's being a
> tool. However, I wanna know what can be done about it, because I'm not
> going to give up so easily. Is it okay for Devin Teske to fork hxd and gpl
> it or not?
I've hea
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 06:08:57PM -0700, Sam Powers wrote:
> There's a piece of software i've been wanting to package, but the
> upstream maintainer, Ryan Nielsen removed the COPYING file from his source
> tree a while ago. this is bad, because hxd and other included software
> links with GPL'd co
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:12:01AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> I daresay that I, Aaron, and a number of other regulars here (and on
> license-discuss@opensource.org) are familiar enough with the usual sort
> of copyright law, and how licensing operates as a legal mechanism under
> it, to see that Yo
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:11:00AM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> could argue that it has cryptographic software, and so should go into
> non-US.
This doesn't work. CSS was specifically designed to be export-grade.
And all of the non-US crypto restrictions have already fallen away
from official law
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Unfortunately, there's more. A few years ago, OpenSSL became
> maintained by Tim Hudson and others. Their contributions are licensed
> under the original BSD license, *with the advertising clause*.
Minor clarification
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:03:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, anyway, we've been looking into the "crypto-in-main" issue recently,
> and someone (actually someones, probably) mentioned that the OpenSSL has
> some problems, both patent related (it includes IDEA, and some other
> patented algo
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:03:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, anyway, we've been looking into the "crypto-in-main" issue recently,
I'm hoping not to flog a dead horse here or come accross as a troll,
but I had a (possibly stupid) thought about the whole crypto issue
today.
AFAIK, the regul
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 09:45:35PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Now, there is yet another exception for GPL-compatible programs,
> saying the modification restrictions don't apply. Can one argue that
> this is simply dual-licensing? Or a special usage restriction ("you
>
Previously proposals were discussed to encourage widespread use of
upx. I have found a licensing issue which I think raises a vaild
objection to this.
From http://wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at/mfx/upx-license.html:
SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR COMPRESSED EXECUTABLES
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a question: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt
> Is this a ok license. Can it go to main or does it
> have to go to non-free/contrib?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html
But yes, it is free.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:50:43PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> - The license on the files keyspan_usa*_fw.h is the only files
> effected by the Keyspan license. This license was drawn up by
> Keyspan's lawyers after consulting other firmware licenses in
> the kernel, talk
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Why? If someone who is contributing to a free software project wants,
> for whatever reason, to dual licence their code to Microsoft, you
> can't really stop them from doing so. If you insist that all
> contributors give an exc
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 07:33:53PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> While I'm not disputing your assertion that Microsoft may exploit copyrigth
> holders who use their various free services to recover their operating costs
> or increase profits, I do contest your assertion that a general public
> li
- Forwarded message from Bryan-TheBS-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Copyright/Licensing] "Dual-copyright/licensing" of your IP
withOUT your permission
Date: 2001 April 02
[Copyright/Licensing] "Dual-copyright/licensing"
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:28:15PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> Ralf Treinen has raised some concern with sections 4, 5 and 6, and the
> ultimate senntence in the licence, which I post here in full:
It looks fine. Standard BSD (with advertising clause), and some
additional clauses to requirin
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:07:27PM -0600, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> This package is necessary if you want to use the MPEG plugin for
> The GIMP.
Actually, it's necessary just to install Gimp.
Ben, have you thought about changing gimp1.2's Depends on libmpeg1 to
a Reccomends?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:19:57AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> : and distribute for no charge, for non-commercial purposes the source
> : and/or object code of DERIVED SOFTWARE on any present and future
> : support, providing:
>
> So they want to disallow commercial use or circulation of der
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:09:59AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
That is not the complete list.
(There is no complete list.)
Theoretically, there are infinite possible GPL-compatable license. The
linux-audio folks are free to create
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:55:54PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> and he didn't make it very
> clear at all what you should do if the Artistic License wasn't
> acceptable (which it isn't)
Whoah whoah.
10.Example Licenses
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses
I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to
distribute xodo under. Is this statement sufficient as copying terms
if placed into the debian/copyright file?
--- Begin Message ---
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The Debian GNU/Linux distribution w
(this kind stuff can go to just debian-legal)
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:45:49PM +0530, Viral wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone tell me if there are any licensing problems with opendivx ?
> Would it be similar to debian not being able to package lame even though
> the code is now 100% free of any fr
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:16:07PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
> > > Please feel free to distribute it any way you want.
> > > However, it would be nice if you could leave a reference to my
> > > web site and email.
>
> Probably it isn't free because it doesn't expressly permit modification.
I
Wow, two of us must have both been reading Slashdot at the same time!
My search of the archives for ksh, korn, and AT&T wan't very effective
against the Slashdot effect.
pgp36GAvw7Boj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
http://www.research.att.com/sw/license/ast-open.html
is the license that ksh93 appears to be covered by. I can't tell
whether it repeats the DFSG at a cursory glance. It doesn't look like
a nice license. Does anyone see anything non-free about it?
pgprzTuh2rZny.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:24:23PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> He said that hx was no not under any
> license, and he thought that software licensing was stupid and he did
> not care about it. He has not been willing to change the license to
> something such as the BSD license, which
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: 20001210
I have announced my intention to adopt hx, and have found several
problems in the process.
I quote the copyright:
Copyright (C) 1991 asf, asf.
hx is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Publ
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:48:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I refused to sign a document like this at my current job, do not know how well
> that would do for you here. It depends on the people you work for.
Wow! You should have told me about that before I signed it :(.
pgpUaXRM2naSS
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >I urge the Debian community to reject this license; it looks to me like it
> >might fail DFSG #9.
>
> "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software"? Really? I think it would
> be a strange interpretation of a "Distribution" of UW-IMA
35 matches
Mail list logo
