owever, I found several
packages[1] in main section using this license.
[1]
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=duplicated+in+all+such+forms+and+that+any+documentation%2C+advertising&literal=1
Regards,
Eriberto
t;>
>
>
IMO it is not DFSG compatible. Sounds like GPL-3+ and my own terms. However
these terms are not compliant with GPL and there are restrictions to usage.
Regards,
Eriberto
ged the licensing to GPL-3+ without a
permission from previous copyright holders, that are inactive. Is
possible do it, only considering the plus signal in previous licensing
(GPL-2+)?
Regards,
Eriberto
rong, so go ahead, upload your package"?
Regards,
Eriberto
er
> upstream project to exist and be active, remove the embedded code copy
> and port the diff to a newer libjpeg and upstream that and then get
> that uploaded to Debian.
I agree.
Cheers,
Eriberto
ed to work if it is necessary. It is
similar to traditional configure file, made by hand. I don't see a
real problem here. However, Pabs agrees with Helmut here[3].
I still have doubts about if this situation is a DFSG violation and I
need more opinions.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Er
explicit in license text.
Reagrds,
Eriberto
Hi all,
Thanks for your opinions. I will drop my idea about to package this wordlist.
Thanks!
Eriberto
2016-09-22 1:24 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy :
>> Eriberto Mota writes:
>>
>> > However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian.
>
> Le Thu,
lso a list about what don't to use for
security.
However, I will wait more opinions before submit a package to Debian.
Regards,
Eriberto
e license for this wordlist?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
Thanks Charles.
The distorm3 is a dependency for volatility and I am concerned.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2016-05-31 20:50 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy :
>
> if the distorm3 upstream developer fully holds the copyright on the software,
> then he can relicense as he wishes.
>
> However, BS
Hi,
The distorm3 upstream relicensed the source code from GPL3+ to
BSD-4-Clause. I think it is wrong but I didn't found references about
it. So, I need opinions about this issue.
Regards,
Eriberto
After some time, I came back.
Thanks a lot for all replies. I will file a bug now.
Regards,
Eriberto
in debian-legal because the package is in Debian several
years without problems.
Thanks a lot to Riley, Ángel and Ben.
Cheers,
Eriberto
, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).
Thanks a lot for your help!
Regards,
Eriberto
2015-10-18 19:06 GMT-02:00 Ángel González :
> I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.
>
> However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes with
&
, but the main
license is non-DFSG (IMHO).
Thanks a lot for your help!
Regards,
Eriberto
2015-10-18 19:06 GMT-02:00 Ángel González :
> I have to agree with the interpretations of the given text.
>
> However, in addition to the license in the README file, it also comes with
&
anks in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
>
> I suppose that can be an incentive to add an appropriate license
> grant.
>
> [G1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section9
>
> --
> Josué M. Abarca S.
Ok, but it is an option to final user. A package can't impose a
version. A package must descr
in
NEW, GPL-2 only and ask for upstream to change the headers. So, my
initial POV will be kept.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.or
s the conventional FSL GPL text (as here[2]).
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
IMHO, this "generical" case imposes a GPL-2 license, not a GPL-2+,
because the upstream didn't explain his intent in source code.
What is your opinion?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
IMHO you can use GPL-2, considering 1999-2002 (or nearly) as upstream date.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debi
2014-09-16 14:53 GMT-03:00 Pierre Rudloff :
> Unfortunately, Lutris does not provide any information about the games'
> licence.
> So I guess we should add it to contrib ?
I think that it is the better way.
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.deb
Thanks Ian!
Pierre, you need think about what to do.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-09-16 13:46 GMT-03:00 Ian Jackson :
> At DC14 we had a conversation about the fact that at the moment it is
> not possible for a user to say only once, when installing Debian, that
> they only want free softwa
r, we have the
possibility to install proprietary and commercial games too. So, what
is the better section for lutris?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Eriberto
[1] https://github.com/lutris/lutris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
Thanks all for explanations. This question is clear to me now.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.or
product of the junction of
these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue?
Thanks,
Eriberto
2014-08-21 19:08 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy :
>
> Yes, sorry for not being clear: by « if combined » I meant debian/patches.
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@list
rivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the
license GPL-3+ or not?
I didn't understand the fact of the upstream use GPL-3+ and debian/
can be GPL-2+ or other because I am thinking about derivative work.
Thanks!
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debia
Lv3, such as the requirement to
provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result,
the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released
under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
-
Can someone confirm it?
Thanks.
Regards,
Eribe
28 matches
Mail list logo
