Re: Bug#799214: License review: tarsnap

2025-02-04 Thread Colin Percival
usly not Free in the Debian sense but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the non-free repo. As Graham noted upthread, we do host our own .deb package repo -- but we only have x86 packages, so it would make me very happy to see tarsnap be included in Debian and built for other

Re: [Fwd: Copyright violation in utils/bsdiff 4.2-1]

2005-08-09 Thread Colin Percival
Daniel Baumann wrote: > Colin Percival wrote: >>I don't think I need to explain the problem any further... > > Nevertheless, maybe you can give me a hint why you obviously don't want > the text to be part of bsdiff? I don't like having my work copied without my

Re: Copyright violation in utils/bsdiff 4.2-1

2005-08-09 Thread Colin Percival
Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>The text from my website appears as part of bsdiff_4.2-1.diff.gz. > >>My website, as an original creative work, is covered by copyright >>laws and treaties. I did not give permission for

Copyright violation in utils/bsdiff 4.2-1

2005-08-08 Thread Colin Percival
original creative work, is covered by copyright laws and treaties. I did not give permission for my website to be copied and redistributed. I don't think I need to explain the problem any further... Colin Percival PS. I'm not subscribed to debian-legal (obviously), so please CC me on an

Re: BSD Protection License

2003-10-23 Thread Colin Percival
At 13:01 23/10/2003 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-10-23 11:10:13 +0100 Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. You may do X 2. You may do Y 3. You may do Z means "you may take any, all, or none, of the actions X,Y,Z"; likewise, clauses 2, 3, and 4 each provide alterna

Re: BSD Protection License

2003-10-23 Thread Colin Percival
ing, contracts, or any sort of legal services. OT: What triggered this burst of people modifying the BSD licence to be incompatible with all other free software licences? This is the second on -legal this month, I think. ITYM "this burst of people submitting licenses to -legal". This license has been around for 18 months. Colin Percival

Re: BSD Protection License

2003-10-23 Thread Colin Percival
at people license their software under such a license. I'm not advocating anything. >Just for the record, I concur that the license is not DFSG Free. For the record, can you tell me specifically which parts of the DFSG are not satisfied by this license? Colin Percival

Re: BSD Protection License

2003-10-23 Thread Colin Percival
ot? Are you suggesting that UCB might launch a trademark suit over three letters? I think I'll accept that risk. Could you just use a regular BSD license? I can't do that right now. I might be able to do that at some later date. Colin Percival