Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

I moved the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs. (please CC me). On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:05:25PM +, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:45:25PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > Again, this is not the language that the AGPL uses. It requires that > > "your modified vers

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:04:53PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I don't think there are any problems with the AGPL and indeed I might > well consider using the AGPL for works of my own. I don't have time That is not very interesting, because if you are the sole copyright holder, you do not have to

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:23:21PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:32:10 MJ Ray wrote: > > Here the scenario becomes impossible IMO - if Z is truly a bad actor, > > Z will always either find a way to withhold their source code or > > develop on an alternative A's appl

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Greg Harris wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100 > Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Hello Debian legal, > > The AGPL has been the topic of multiple extended and heated discussions > during my short time subscribed to this lis

issues with the AGPL

Hello Debian legal, I'd like to share two issue I found with the AGPL, for the record. REFERENCES: The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) is essentially the GNU General Public License with the following additional clause reproduced below. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl.html

Re: firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:21:24AM +0100, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > El martes, 5 de diciembre de 2006 a las 13:57:48 -0800, Jeff Carr escrib?a: > > > I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not > > use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't > > also

Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > It is not reasonable for the project to vote on questions of legality, nor > is it appropriate to rely on debian-legal for questions of legality. If the May I remind that debian-legal is a mailing list ? > relevant delegates/maint

Re: Who can make binding legal agreements

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > And hi to everyone from /.! > > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along > at home. If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun Java' on debian-devel-announce would hav

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: > > As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply > > is none. > > The issue at question is whether Sun has given ad

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers > of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive > are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of > authority is

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the > > problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least > > damaging route to go for, imho. > > You can say that if you like, but please be aware tha

Re: ipv6calc: IP address assignments as source code

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:49:50PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > The ipv6calc upstream tarball database directory contains a README saying: > > Because of unknown license issues, the database files aren't > included in source tarball (cleanup by "make distclean"), but > will be retrieved on "make"

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner. > > ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the > archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict > deadline for pulling it, if not im

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the > upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't... The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. "New packages" the process to add new packag

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:09:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > At least so far as I understand it, the ftp-masters (i.e., the people who > did this check) are the people responsible for verifying and checking > licenses in uploaded packages and debian-legal exists as an advisory body > for the ftp

Re: UC license and debian

On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:24:50PM -0700, kris wrote: > > We are releasing some software and would like to > make sure it is compatible with debian. > > We have been told that this is the current license to > use for UC produced works. > http://www.ucop.edu/ott/permissn.html > > I searched the

Re: Affero General Public License

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > I *do* think that the spirit behind the AGPL and Affero-inspired > clause in the GPLv3 is fully in line with our principles. *Users* of > software should be able to modify their software. There is the issue of defining *users*.

Re: Moglen on kernel firmware blobs

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:18:06AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next > > > > Moglen: > > > > I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the > > kernel. If the kernel's terms

Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:36:14PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > The Debian Project has been distributing this work in violation of my > > > copyrights. I've previously requested this be remedied in 2003, the > > > situation remains uncorrected: > > > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debia

Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 08:10:06PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > I have recently been wondering if it would be possible to come up with > some way of splitting -legal up in order to make it more approachable > for outsiders. Unfortunately it seems that -legal is prone to enormous > threads that often

Re: License question about regexplorer

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion > > and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read > > debian-l

Re: License question about regexplorer

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the > DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the > not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues. I disagree with

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

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved > > problem, or the ones discussing it. > > Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've > > tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few > > weeks, for which I thank all inv

Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it: > > A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in >/usr/share/doc/abiword/copyright are out of date, as is >http://www.abisource.com/tm_guide.phtml >. Unfo

firmwares in the 2.4.25 Linux kernel (Debian sources)

Hello Debian legal, I have made a very cursory check of firmware in the 2.4.25 kernel. If you want some fun first, look at [2] below. Basically I have looked at filenames matching *fw*.[ch]: firmware with complete source code (in assembly): drivers/char/ser_a2232fw.h drivers/usb/serial/keyspan_

Bug#242895: drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h has a non-free license

Package: kernel-source-2.4.25 Version: 2.4.25-1 Severity: serious The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below: /* * This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface * * The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic * as an unpublished work. This notice does

removing non-invaraint section from a GFDL doc

Hello debian-legal, Suppose I remove all the non-invariant sections of a GFDL document that have some sections marked invariant. Are the invariant sections still secondary? If not, can I still distribute the resulting document ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl h

#153467: libjpeg62: JPEG is patent-encumbered

severity 153467 important thanks Hello debian-legal and Florian, As discussed previously, it seems there is nothing to do about this issue short of moving main in non-US-EU-JP. So I downgrade the severity to important so that we can release sarge someday :). If you have new informations about

#153467: libjpeg62: JPEG is patent-encumbered

severity 153467 serious thanks Hello developers, The JPEG commitee has released a press kit about the patend issue, see . Could someone that understand legalese make a summary for further discussion about what to do Debian-wise? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTE

[Weimer@cert.uni-stuttgart.de: Bug#153467: libjpeg62: JPEG is patent-encumbered]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#153467: libjpeg62: JPEG is patent-encumbered Reply-To: "Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: "Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resen