Re: Does Debian itself have a license?

On 09/09/2018 12:51 AM, Ben Finney wrote: My understanding is that the entire operating system is delivered as packages, and each package declares its copyright information in its ‘/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGENAME/copyright’ document. That does raise an interesting question — things like the package l

Re: clementine: installs non-free plugin at runtime

(from Jonas Smedegaard via the bug): > One of several functions of Clementine is to stream audio from cloud > service Spotify. Initially selecting that function triggers a routine > where Clementine (asks for concent and then) downloads and installs a > non-free binary driver. > > Policy 2.2.1

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

On 06/08/2017 06:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: I'd prefer not to, because Message-ID reveals what I consider private information (IP address or client hostname) to an unbounded audience, and I believe that this is a greater privacy violation than the lintian warning against downloading a hype

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

On 01/21/2016 05:09 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: There are licenses like the vim license which force developers to ship their patches proactively to the upstream developers and thus possibly to the public. If the vim license does not discriminate against a certain field of endeavour this licen

Re: MPL and Source Code

Craig Southeren wrote: This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either. As a user, the seems more than a little unreasonable, but if that'

Re: MPL and Source Code

Craig Southeren wrote: Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't see this as a problem. Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is, after all, the one with commit access). Given Debian's persistent problems with MIA maintainers, it — unfo

Re: new tool - searching for example

Sorry for replying twice, but the LPPL (LaTeX Public Project License) stuff --- the new version which was, in large part, driven by -legal, would be interesting too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new tool - searching for example

Csillag Kristóf wrote: Hi there! As my master's thesis, I am developing a new Argument Mapping tool. Cool. Will it become free software? An ideal thread for my example would look like this: - Revolts around one (or very few) basic decisions I assume you mean 'revolves', not 'revolts'

Re: MPL and Source Code

Craig Southeren wrote: I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN archive? A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the maintainer of the package. Reasons for this happening are numerous; trivial example is an urgent fix when the maintainer i

Re: MPL and Source Code

On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote: > A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained > source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does this ever occur? Security updates and NMU's come to mind. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: MPL license

On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:19:05PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Agreed fully. MPL has more than one problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a su

Re: MPL license

Marco d'Itri wrote: You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this. The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source code remain available for 12 after initial distribution or 6 months after distribution of a subsequ

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Adam McKenna wrote: Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it is not equivalent to having access. If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A. If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Adam McKenna wrote: The exact text of the FDL is: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can be made. 1) Copies that are made, but n

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Adam McKenna wrote: That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more than one copy at a time, The plaintiff needs to d

Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system

Måns Rullgård wrote: Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done. Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord is in main? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system

Eduard Bloch wrote: ---BEGIN QUOTE--- c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Adam McKenna wrote: But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about documents here.) Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so long as "such new copy or adapta

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Andrew Saunders wrote: >and the fact that one shouldn't summarize threads >that are still active (I'll follow the "3 day rule" [1] from now on). > > May I suggest that for threads which are currently active, you "summarize" them as something along the lines of: [Name] brought up [issue, w/

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Adam McKenna wrote: >Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use? > > Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several computers). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

olive wrote: > > I think he want to rule out formats only understandable by proprietary > sofwares. The open standards bit is enough to accomplish that. So would be the generic text editors bit. Yet, it has both. Generally, when reading legal documents you have to assume the words and clauses ar

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

olive wrote: > > Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML > file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies > (as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is > not a "generic text" editor. Actually, you can't edit an OpenOf

Re: Interpretation of the GFDL in light of the recent GR

Andrew Donnellan wrote: >On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> 1. Does the term "technical measures" as used in GFDL 2's "you may >> >> > >Don't you mean 1.2? > > That should have a &quo

Re: The compliance of the licences of OpenCascade and WildMagic libraries to the GPL requirements of Debian

Dominik Margraf wrote: > > http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ > > and Wild Magic > > http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf > > Are the licenses of these libraries above compliant to Debian's > requirements? Questions about the freeness of a license belong on debian-lega

Interpretation of the GFDL in light of the recent GR

Branden, I am wondering if you will request that SPI, Inc. obtain from its legal council, on behalf of the Debian Project, an answer to the following questions: 1. Does the term "technical measures" as used in GFDL 2's "you may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the readin

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: >So, again I am left thinking that we have not walked the tightrope >between explaining troublesome licenses and boring the pants off of >most developers. What could we be doing that we aren't? > > > One thing that springs to mind is to start doing summaries of traffic on Debian-le

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony Towns wrote: >So, debian-legal is "us", leaving the rest of the project to be >"them"? > When I'm sending a message to debian-legal, yes, I often use "us" to mean the participants on debian-legal. I intend only to save a little typing, nothing more. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

OK, I'd love to go with the interpreting the recent GR to mean "as a special exception, the GFDL is free." However, I'm not sure how I can possibly interpret the GR and the Debian Constitution to make that reading tenable: First, the GR very clearly states, "... we also consider that works li

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

olive wrote: >> Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the >> Supreme Court (at least in the US). > > > Debian is an international project and not a US project. I don't think > that many non US Debian users or developer will be happy with that. > Would you agree if a s

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: >Please provide references. From my recollection and Manoj Srivastava's >draft PS, it was far from the consensus in the general case for the latter. > > Upon further thought, I'm not sure if we reached a consensus on that; it was certainly a while ago. I hereby retract the statemen

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Francesco Poli wrote: >On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:23:32 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >[...] > > >>However, maybe once we come up with a way to reconcile the Project's >>decision with the text of the DFSG and GFDL, we should ask the project >>to approve i

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Francesco Poli wrote: >I'm definitely not happy: on the contrary, I'm really depressed... >:-((( > > Well, I must say I'm not depressed about it --- that'd be if Amendment B passed. Or even got majority. I can understand how the average developer can yell "nitpicking!" at a lot of our objectio

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Joe Buck wrote: >That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years >is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy >available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found >the latter provision a DFSG violation. > We found both of them to be DFS

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Glenn Maynard wrote: >On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > >>I propose that the >>Project is telling us that something along the following is the true >>reading: >> >>"You may not use technical measures to obst

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: >More than unfortunate, it makes that ambition impossible without >telepathy or further surveying, as far as I can see. There seems >little point just guessing what motives produced a pi=3 statement. > It isn't quite as bad as pi = 3, as there is certainly some abiguity in both the D

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Walter Landry wrote: >You're right. I did not notice that. That makes the analysis much >simpler. The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG >#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections. > Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads: * **Example Licenses* The "*GPL

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Joey Hess wrote: > Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a > majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural > for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up "3". I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm not exactly sure how else to proce

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Henning Makholm wrote: >>"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the >>reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the >>copies you make or distribute [to him]" >> >> > >But how can we explain away "make or"? > I'm pretty sure I carefuly did s

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Debian Project Secretary wrote: >The winners are: >Option 2 "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free" > Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority; chaos is preserved for another day.[0] However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and

Re: Missing documentation for autoconf

olive wrote: > The social contract say also "We will never make the system require the > use of a non-free component". It is reasonable to think that the use of > Debian requires the GFDL documentation. Even assuming the above "it is reasonable" is true[0], the following does not hold: > If Debi

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage. Nothing > in > the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be readable. Well, actually, its not because devices easily barf on things that aren't ASCII. And, further, the GFDL says I must preserve i

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Yorick Cool wrote: > Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the > license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah, > it's as good as free. Ok, I think my point has been missed. After numerous examples (having to carry around page after page of

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Adam McKenna wrote: > I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding. Can > you give an example of such a device? My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr

Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill

Craig Sanders wrote: >>>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed >>>in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution >>>of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying >>>the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT >>>DISTRIBUTI

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

olive wrote: > Of course you can. You just keep the bytes representing the Japanese > version intact even if these does not display properly on your device. "L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, UNALTERED IN THEIR TEXT and in their titles." I think changing 標準語 to æ¨æºèª would

Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > I bet another EURO 50 (through PayPal) that Red Hat and Novell are > also going to lose and won't get dismissal under 12(b)(6). I wish I could play, but I'm pretty sure wagering like that is illegal in the jurisdiction I live :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders wrote: > if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into > the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document > along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or > a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the requir

Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill

Craig Sanders wrote: > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only. No, it does not. Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added: > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed > in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution > of "patch files" with the

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders wrote: > stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't. [snip] > it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a > foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY > IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders wrote: > don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you > are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own > copy. Well, creating modified versions of a copyrighted work requires the permission of the copyright holder. In some countries t

A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Anton Zinoviev wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example > you are welcome to share it with us. :-) I don't recall the following example being brought up. Let's assume a manual, written by

Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?

Raul Miller wrote: >>>Any dispute arising out of or >>>related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa >>>Clara County, California, USA. > > The big deal here is that if someone sues Adobe, Adobe > doesn't have to incur huge legal fees defending themselves. > Since it's free s

Re: STIX Font License

Francesco Poli wrote: > For instance, names such as STIX++, STIXng, newSTIX, STIXER, STICS, > STHIX, and so forth, are banned by the above clause, but they are > *different* from the original name, and thus comply with the maximum > DFSG-allowed restriction on names. OTOH, were STIX a trademark

Re: bitstream font license

olive wrote: > Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with > the DFSG? "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling [...] the software as a component of an AGGREGATE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION containing programs from several different sources

Re: Ironies abound

Frank Küster wrote: > Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it > so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and > conclusive evidence... Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on "SEARCH trademark

Re: Translation of a license

Tobias Toedter wrote: > "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify\n" > "it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by\n" > "the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at\n" > "your option) any later version.\n" > "\n" > "Th

Re: FYI, kernel firmware non-freeness discussions

We should start a "betting pool"[0] on when Wallace v. FSF will be dismissed (again). The winner, of course, gets nothing but recognition of being the winner :-D [0] Not really betting as nothing of value would be involved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsu

Re: libecw

Miriam Ruiz wrote: > I'm not sure if it's license ( > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293346 ) can be considered > free enough to be in main: FYI, the right place to ask this is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moving it over there. Full-quoting because of this. Summary: I don't believe this is

Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the > copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of > http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html): I think if you want to suggest to the FSF that the language "[h]o

Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton > Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act > to succeed. Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his

Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with. > But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put > the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway > (antitrust violation -> copyright misuse -> quas

Re: Is this license DFSG free?

Sean Kellogg wrote: > "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that > you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this violate the > Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen? No, because the following statement is allo

Re: Is this license DFSG free?

Sean Kellogg wrote: > Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science > perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of > various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive > policy decisions based on thin air? No. Debian

Re: openssl vs. GPL question

Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote >>that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-( > > > And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete > evidence to back up his claim th

Re: openssl vs. GPL question

Michael K. Edwards wrote: > P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an > anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to > his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments > at http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/tech/0002/msg0017

Re: openssl vs. GPL question

Michael K. Edwards wrote: > You might also observe the comments at > http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and > http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first > from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing > OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets

Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence

Michael K. Edwards wrote (with spacing fixed): > 2) the "50% rule" applies to _authorship_, which connotes (per > Aalmuhammed v. Lee) a degree of creative control so high that, e. > g.,there is no candidate for "authorship" of the Linux kernel other > than Linus Torvalds; I've read the cited case,

Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence

Andrew Suffield wrote: > The primary threat is not from the heirs (although that is a threat, > and you don't have control over all your heirs - your parents and > cousins can qualify), If you're worried about your heirs revoking your copyright licences, I suggest talking to the FSF or someone li

Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence

Don Armstrong wrote: > First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this > list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your > arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal. I'd say to at least use a reasonably unique pseudonym if you wish

Re: Creating a Debtags 'license' facet

As well as the dual-licencing issues Andrew mentioned, I'd like to point out a more serious issue: What is the expected use of this tagging? Personally, I can see two uses, neither of which this tag as proposed seems to cover well: 1) I am looking to find a some code with a compatible licence t

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: But "distribution" and "bits on the wire" aren't equivalent. What we distributed to the users is clearly source code. They can cd into the directory and read it if they please. If someone were to write special tools that would download the source in an encrypted form and

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: That works only if they don't distribute libssl with it. Sure. Same as for Debian. If you distributing software, open source or not, you need to read and follow the license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Michael K. Edwards wrote: But note that in principle the creation of derivative works can be infringement even if they are not distributed, and I haven't dug through case law to see exactly how far 17 USC 117 can be stretched from run-time use to local builds. Thankfully, you need not do so; GPL (2

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Adam McKenna wrote: According to you. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that such binaries are undistributable, Debian is still not affected, since we aren't contributing to their distribution, only their creation. ... and even if by some stretch of the imagination we are contributing to

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: Which can occur if anyone redistributes any of the I_WANT_OPENSSL debian packages. No, most likely even that would be fine. Since Debian packages are intended to be used with Debian, and Debian ships OpenSSL, third parties get to use the GPL's exception for things distributed w

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: I think we are. We're distributing: The unmodified sources The modified sources The binaries without libssl The binaries with libssl These are packed efficiently, but by issuing slightly different commands you can get each of these. The distribution of any one of these does not

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: But we're doing more than distributing the tarball. The tarballs we're distributing have been modified so that the user need only type a couple commands, and (using software we've provided) the binaries are reconstituted on their machine. So what? First off, the GPL gives us pe

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: If "distribute" meant "distribute in the form of debian packages as defined by the semantics of dpkg" as opposed to "distribute whatever the mechanism", we'd be golden. As long as we don't distribute GPL'd code linked with OpenSSL in "object code or executable form", but only a

Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

Raul Miller wrote: Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl? In source code form, yes, we do under sections 1 and 2 of the GPL. The "the source code for all modules it contains" is part of section 3, which does

Re: For thoughts: fair license

James William Pye wrote: > [Sent to license-discuss as another letter, and please CC me.] > It's longer, but, all in all, I think it makes it a better license: > > The exercise and enjoyment of the rights granted by authorship > is authorized provided that this instrument is retain

Re: How can I mix GFDL and GPL sources?

Gueven Bay wrote: > The whole document I want to release under the GPL. Most likely, you can't because Wikipedia is GFDL, last I heard. > > So, the reason why I post here are the following questions: > 1) Is it right that the rules files are under the GPL? No. You'll have to check /usr/share/d

Re: Question about freeness of XyMTeX license [2nd try]

Kevin B. McCarty wrote: %% Copying of this file is authorized only if either %% %% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and %% directory name %% (2) if you do make changes, %% (a) you name it something other than the names included in the %% ``chemist

Re: Bug#294559: A very permitive license.

Jeff King wrote: MÃns RullgÃrd wrote: Netbiff may be redistributed in any form without restriction. Netbiff comes with NO WARRANTY. It doesn't explicitly allow distributing modified versions. Maybe "any form" was intended to include modifications, but it's not obvious. Why not just use the BSD or

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Humberto Massa wrote: If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their modification. They are not copyright notices. US law, at least, is very clear and very explicit about the form a copyright notice must take, and these are nowhere near it. And even if you somehow think the

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

Andrew Suffield wrote: It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions, copyright. That's really not that weird; the US is one of those jurisdictiosn, for example (though only for some works, oddly enough). Sec. 106a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subje

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

Andrew Suffield wrote: If you want to propose an alternate set of guidelines for some subset of the works in Debian, here's what you need to do: Append at the end: - Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with your proposal, and feel you have enough support... - Propose a

Re: cl-typesetting license

Ingo Ruhnke wrote: Sound free to me, since not the output of the library is required to confirm to it, but the interface which generates the input for the library. So to me it looks basically just like something like GPLs 2c section applied to the web. Not really. GPL 2(c) tells me what changes I m

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Glenn Maynard wrote: I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with "ld" is completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it see

Re: BitTorrent 4.0.1 - BitTorrent Open Source License

Please post license texts to -legal, not just URLs. This makes them easier to comment on and preserves the relevant information in our list archive. I grabbed the following from http://www.bittorrent.com/license/ on April 2, 2005 @ 0455 EST. BitTorrent Open Source License Version 1.0 This Bit

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With the exception of the proposed fix for the DRM language (my problems with it have been pointed out by others), I support this summary and strongly encourage Creative Commons to resolve these issues. Subject: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 lic

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Daniel Carrera wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec. 401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol Â, the word "copyright", or the abbreviation "copr."; the year of the first publication of the w

Re: dssi license issues

Mark Hymers wrote: = Licensing for the files in the examples directory may vary: please check the individual files for details. Most of them are in the public domain, which means you can use them for anything you want. = Public domain should be fine for main. -- To

Re: Linux and GPLv2

Matthew Palmer wrote: Add another one -- "must offer an [...] opportunity for all users [...] to request immediate transmission by HTTP" -- doesn't mean that the request must be successfully honoured... Strictly speaking, yes. However, if you intentionally saw that all requests would fail to be

Re: Linux and GPLv2

Francesco Poli wrote: | 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new | versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new | versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may | differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Humberto Massa wrote: Yes, you could start with "this document is (C) its contributors as defined in the file AUTHORS" ... That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec. 401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol Â, the word "copyright", or the abbreviation

Re: Modifications under Different Terms than Original

Josh Triplett wrote: Actually, A violates the precise letter of the DFSG: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Yes, it does. Back in January, there was a discussion about what that

Modifications under Different Terms than Original (was: Re: why is graphviz package non-free?)

[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...] Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the original, then it isn't DFSG-Free. Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to do

Re: why is graphviz package non-free?

Glenn Maynard wrote: This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result ("caused by the act") of me removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing me to do so. You only idemnify the author "to

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

Michael K. Edwards wrote: As far as I can tell, the only mechanism for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when there is a written agreement involved, a court will only find an implied license as an implied provision in that agreement. As I wrote before, if anyone can

Re: LCC and blobs

Glenn Maynard wrote: It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that needs to be sent proprietary data for a "legitimate" reason (in the sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is "legitimate"). Habeas SWE. I believe SpamAssassin implements the server side (through hashes

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >