Re: License review: Trusted Computing Group

The source code license here is surprisingly good, the "other parts of the specification" license is the problem. It's effectively discrimination by field of endeavor. I would make sure they're only including the source code + license documents and copyright notices. On Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 07:57 Si

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

The *signed* DCO is useful. The *unsigned* DCO is not, it's mostly there for future contributors. On Fri, Nov 29, 2024, 14:11 Soren Stoutner wrote: > On Friday, November 29, 2024 12:03:34 PM MST Daniel Hakimi wrote: > > I don't think the unsigned DCO really supports the cha

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

I don't think the unsigned DCO really supports the chain of custody/title all that much, but it may still put minds at ease that the project is following best practices regarding IP. On Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 12:05 Soren Stoutner wrote: > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefs

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

contribution, it does not grant any permission from anybody to anybody. Regards, Daniel J. Hakimi B.S. Philosophy, RPI 2012 B.S. Computer Science, RPI 2012 J.D. Cardozo Law 2015 On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 1:29 PM Soren Stoutner wrote: > On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:28:18 AM MST Daniel Hakimi wr

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

The DCO is not technically a license, but it is a legal document that usually comes along with a license from the contributor to the project (that license usually being the project license). It also serves to replace a Contributor License Agreement, offering only a base level of assurances that the

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Those words, in both the case of the DCO and GPL, are self-referential; you cannot modify the DCO or the GPL freely. You can modify the work the GPL covers, and the contribution in the DCO is generally licensed under the license of the project you're contributing to. In that sense, the DCO itself

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Florian, the portion of the GPL you are quoting does not describe a general limitation of the license; rather, it describes an exception of "propagating without conveying." That is to say, if these conditions are met, the people in question are basically assumed to be your employees or similar, and

Re: Proposal for the Lachesis Open License as a Framework for Software Freedom

1. Your license grant only covers derivative works. Review clause two through four of the apache license. 2. You don't offer an explicit patent license. Is there a reason for this? 3. You didn't include any disclaimers or defensive termination clauses. Those are usually smart. 4. Your first clau

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

e problem we've been talking about for 20+ emails. On Tue, Aug 27, 2024, 08:24 wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > thank you for your reply. > > Am 27.08.2024 14:18 schrieb Daniel Hakimi: > > 2. Are you worried about consumer confusion from somebody using your > > logo &g

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Okay, so a couple of things... 1. A trademark is technically automatic for any mark you are actively using in trade. You don't necessarily need to register it to have it. This isn't always the best approach, but realistically, people are unlikely to copy your logo anyway, so this might be enough t

Re: XZ upstream thinks about switching from PD to 0BSD.

The BSD 0-clause license is effectively a public domain grant in jurisdictions that acknowledge public domain grants, and an extremely permissive license in jurisdictions that do not. This does not seem like an issue. attribution is not required in either case. On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 15:49 Sebastia

Re: Possible GPL violation

You are allowed to modify works licensed under the GPL. You are not allowed to modify the GPL itself. On Tue, Jun 20, 2023, 21:27 Joshua Allen wrote: > In the debian manual, it says > > "This manual is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it > under > the terms of the GNU General

Re: About distribution of modified copy of Debian OS

As long as you comply with the GPL, this is perfectly acceptable. Note that this includes making source code available and allowing licensees to redistribute your OS freely, so charging for your version might not be the most effective way go make money—I could just throw up an iso torrent for free—

Re: Microsoft Bing or Windows Spotlight daily picture as wallpaper?

Technically, one could very easily argue this is illegal as you're reproducing copies of the images without permission. Obviously, this sort of thing is very standard on a lot of the internet, and most people know the risks of putting their photos up online. But there are also copyright trolls out

Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

What about them? On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 16:42 Benito Garcia wrote: > 😊 >

Re: Legal status of Audacity in releases newer than Bullseye

At a glance, while Debian shouldn't distribute it and the community should certainly fork, I'm not sure it's technically a GPL violation. Is there a clickwrap page requiring you to agree to the privacy policy to use audacity? Does Audacity as they distribute it involve any network-related services?

Re: tomboy-ng package with non standard license.

Is this the conversation they had about the license? It doesn't seem very robust... First of all, did they even have the authority to modify the license? Were there contributors? Did the contributors sign a CLA that allowed the license to be changed i

Re: Subpoena regarding ongoing patent matter

There is nobody "at" Debian because Debian is not a place or a legal organization. Depending on what you want out of your subpoena, the information might already be publicly available. Otherwise, there *may* be individuals or related nonprofits or large contributing corporations you could ask for c

Re: Maxmind GeoIP/Geolite license change

What do you mean by "it should not be possible to sell the database?" The CC-BY-SA and all other Free licenses allow commercial uses, including paid licenses. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 16:51 Michael Tremer wrote: > Thank you for your feedback. > > As you will have noticed, I am not an expert on lic

Re: FreeMedForms projet

Can you please clarify -- you said the license was the same, but you didn't say what that license actually was. What license is your code available under? On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 07:18 Eric Maeker wrote: > Hi, > > For now, our NPO is too poor to engage in consulting or to pay external > developmen

Re: Transity: GPL-licensed but Free only for Non-Commercials

So I agree that the language, as worded, seems like it might not be binding... But it at least reflects a contradictory intent, if not a hard contradiction. The licensors are certainly confused. Has somebody tried contacting them to clarify their intent? On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 06:44 Roberto wrote:

Re: GPL2 + required to have the place to get the recent version

own source available meet various free software definitions is not really relevant to the discussion of this particular text. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 17:11 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:00:04 -0500 Daniel Hakimi wrote: > > > But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*. > [..

Re: GPL2 + required to have the place to get the recent version

But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*. The text seems generally uninformed to me, and I wouldn't assume much of anything, especially not when I could communicate with the people who wrote it instead. On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 06:20 Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > Il 13/11/19 01:03, Danie

Re: GPL2 + required to have the place to get the recent version

So, technically, he can't actually add restrictions to the license after he's license them, and if these are taken to not be part of the license, you'd be safe to just follow the license as usual. But if this informal text *is* taken to reflect the intent of the parties, then it might kind of refl

Re: Content Rating System - DFSG-free?

Is this an issue relating to the software license, or just to the general spirit of the DFSG? It would be nice if the rating system could be opt-in, warning based, easy to opt out of, etc. But as long as the software is Free, users can recompile it without the rating system... The point being that

Re: redistribution of the ARIN TAL

I just looked up their terms of service, and I don't see any problem at all... Marco, can you tell us what they actually said, and in what context? Is there an email you can forward? Regards, Daniel J. Hakimi B.S. Philosophy, RPI 2012 B.S. Computer Science, RPI 2012 J.D. Cardozo Law 2015 On Sat

Re: redistribution of the ARIN TAL

Are they talking about redistribution, or access? Are they saying that we're not allowed to distribute the file ourselves, or are they saying that we're not allowed to download the file without agreeing to the terms? We might need to agree to their terms of use to use their website. This makes sen

Re: Hacking License

Why? This license is only more work for the community to understand, and incompatible with everything else out there. What's the upside of using your own license over the GPL? Regards, Daniel J. Hakimi B.S. Philosophy, RPI 2012 B.S. Computer Science, RPI 2012 J.D. Cardozo Law 2015 On Fri, Nov 3

Re: GPL-2+ with additional trademark spice

This is allowed, but it is not an exception or modification to the GPL. You cannot remove permissions from the GPL under any circumstances. Rather, this is allowed because the GPL is, in no way, a trademark license. If anything, the above comment merely clarifies that fact. While many projects are