page on
> DFSG. Any other suggestion?
>
> Regards
>
>
> Le lundi 28 février 2022, 15:23:28 CET David Given a écrit :
> > I believe this is equivalent to the 'no commercial use' clause which
> > violates guideline 6 ('no discrimination against fields of endeav
I believe this is equivalent to the 'no commercial use' clause which
violates guideline 6 ('no discrimination against fields of endeavor, like
commercial use'). Apart from anything else, inclusion would mean that
Debian wouldn't be able to sell DVDs with this package in it.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at
My understanding is that copyright always applies unless explicitly given
up via a public domain declaration; registering with a copyright office is
an *optional* step which doesn't affect the status of the work ---
unregistered works are still copyrighted. The GPL license itself depends on
the wor
rnal...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 23:56, Ben Finney wrote:
> David Given writes:
>
> > I'm doing some historical data preservation work […] I'm hoping to be
> > able to produce a Debian package containing this stuff eventually for
> > use in emulators.
>
I'm doing some historical data preservation work, trying to track down
licensing for some really old (late 1970s and early 1980s) CP/M software.
I'm using 'good enough to get into Debian main' as my ideal win condition
here because it's a pretty high bar and if it's good enough for Debian it's
good
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 14:00 Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
[...]
> > - I *can* use this library in BSD code, and distribute both together
> > as an aggregate under the terms of the GPL --- because the BSD
> > license conditions are
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 12:26 Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
>
[...]
> > and FRR would be entirely within their rights to have pulled
> > these out from the original app and turned them into a GPL library,
> > *with* public entry points, and t
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 11:48 Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Jakma writes:
>
[...]
> > Those files are derived works of the GPL code and must be distributed
> > according to the conditions of the GPL licence, if they are to be
> > distributed lawfully.
>
> Those files do not use GPL code; they just
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 13:09 Paul Jakma wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, a small, non-exhaustive sampling with rough, incomplete notes -
> for the sake of speed:
>
Thanks!
I may be missing something here, but none of the examples you gave show any
signs of being derived code. They *use* vty.[ch], but do
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 11:10 Paul Jakma wrote:
[...]
> One would need to obtain a licence from all the copyright holders
> concerned. According to advice, I am one of those copyright holders. And
> that includes having a copyright interest in the code in the ldpd/ and
> babeld/ directories of FRR
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 23:02 Giacomo wrote:
[...]
> So basically that definition is there to prevent discrimination against
> any group or minority or even against people affected by genetic issues
> and so on.
>
Why not just say 'people'?
To my mind the biggest problem with this license is tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/03/10 20:12, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
[...]
> If you have not stripped /usr/share/doc from your debootstrap it should
> contain all the licenses needed in form of /usr/share/doc/*/copyright
> files.
The image will *literally* be created like this
On 2010-03-22 15:14, Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
Can you give us some more info about what you are doing? Perhaps we
can come up with a better way than distributing a pre-installed
filesystem.
It's a chroot environment for a platform that doesn't support debootstrap.
I'd be more than happy to downl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/03/10 13:56, Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> Absent any modifications, all of Debian (that is, the ‘main’ archive
> section) is free to redistribute verbatim in any form. Many other
> actions are also permitted; see the specific license texts for detai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'd like to distribute a Debian root file system with my (open source)
projects. What are my legal obligations when doing so?
What I want to distribute is a tarball of a basic debootstrapped root
file system. This isn't a format that Debian it
mind that it's entirely possible that there *is* no source. God
knows what weird and wonderful development system they were using; it
might well have been assembled by hand. (A lot of games were programmed
like this.)
Also, I refer you to:
http://www.wearmouth.demon.co.uk/zx82.htm
--
+-
You can have distributable source that's
not Open Source[tm]. It's just... not as open as it could be.
...
Wow. That was a bit longer than I expected. (I seem to have triggered
the Standard Management Lecture on Open Source.) Have I got anything
spectacularly wrong?
--
David Given
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
, you'll know this. We have to be *absolutely sure* that
the patches are free or we'll be asking for trouble...
--
+- David Given --McQ-+ Did you hear about the hard-working but ill sage
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| who got cursed with garlic breath? He was a
| ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) |
r timidity-patches than the 200 .pat files it has now.
> Unfrotunately, there's no license, the host site is long gone, and the
> author seems to have been hit by a bus or something. =( Still, you might
> have more luck now than I did before, and it is a really good soundfont.
What *is* i
urely it's not
distributable at all?
Someone please prove me wrong...
--
+- David Given --McQ-+ Did you hear about the hard-working but ill sage
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| who got cursed with garlic breath? He was a
| ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | super-calloused fragile mystic hexed with
+- www.co
20 matches
Mail list logo
