Re: Removal of copyright years

* Soren Stoutner: >> recently the upstream authors of one of the packages I (co-)maintain >> adjusted the copyright statements of the project on the occasion of its >> integration into the High Performance Software Foundation. >> >> As part of this change copyright years were removed from the cop

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

* Soren Stoutner: > The GFDL with Invariant Section is not the right comparison. The correct > comparison is to the GPL (which has the exact same wording). The FSF gives permission to make modified versions of the GPL, though:

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

* PEPPÈ Santarsiero: > I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, > which I have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license > for evaluation to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and would like to > discuss any proposed modifications they may suggest. Do you expe

Re: TrueType/OpenType and anti-circumvention laws

* Walter Landry: > Paul Wise writes: >> On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 20:16 -0500, P. J. McDermott wrote: >>> Ping?  Any thoughts on whether a font DRM modification tool would be >>> legal to distribute and use in Debian given that the DRM is a simple bit >>> field rather than an "effective" TPM such as

Re: License violations for dependencies of Rust and Go programs?

* John Thorvald Wodder, II: > It is my understanding that when an executable program that depends (directly > or indirectly) on libraries licensed under (picking one license here) the MIT > license is compiled into a binary that statically links these libraries, and > this binary is then distribut

Re: Nmap Public Source License Version 0.94 - Is it DFSG-compliant?

* Sam Hartman: >> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes: > Francesco> I am under the impression that a more correct way to > Francesco> achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to > Francesco> create a different license, possibly reusing some parts > Francesco> of t

Re: do SPDX declaration fulfill §17 of GPL?

* Nicholas D. Steeves: > Hi, > > I found a problematic change in one of my packages: > > > https://github.com/KDE/kio-gdrive/commit/6321fda6294e3d021b7a2758c1200aa42debb021 > > This looks like a regression of license validity to me, because the > fulfillment of §17 of the GPL was removed from t

Re: Bug#964815: it looks like dprof2calltree cannot be distributed with a GPL-2 work

* Nicholas D. Steeves: > Hi, > > Adrian Bunk writes: > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >>> it would still not be DFSG-free, because it >>> fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer >>> Consulting would accept email, it would als

Re: Are ASN.1 modules code or specification?

* Andreas Metzler: > It is not uncommon to directly generate C source from ASN.1 modules. Is that really true? Are there high-quality free ASN.1 toolchains? In my experience, the ASN.1 modules in RFCs are mostly used like the packet layout diagrams, as an informal description, but I never had m

Re: UEFI Revocation List being distributed by Debian

* Paul Wise: > On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 07:26 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> It also has to be optional and disabled by default because a future >> dbx update may be specifically designed to stop Debian systems from >> booting. No Debian user will want to install such

Re: UEFI Revocation List being distributed by Debian

* Paul Wise: > This sort of data is liable to be out of date if included in the > source code of fwupd, I think this should be separate to fwupd in the > same way that tzdata is separate to glibc and DNSSEC root keys are > separate to DNS servers and the web PKI CAs should be separate to web > bro

Re: question about licensing for ruby-spdx-licenses

* Gabriel Filion: > From what I could gather, the website specifies that all content is > covered by CC-BY 3.0: > > https://spdx.org/Trademark > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/terms/ > > However, I'm not completely sure that the information I found is precise > enough.. The upstream repository a

Re: Maxmind GeoIP/Geolite license change

* Patrick Matthäi: > [1]: https://www.maxmind.com/en/geolite2/eula | 3. Destructions of GeoLite2 Database and GeoLite2 Data. From time to | time, MaxMind will release an updated version of the GeoLite2 | Databases, and you agree to promptly use the updated version of the | GeoLite2 Databases. You

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

* Andrej Shadura: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:48, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> >> But again I say that this program is GPL-licensed, but it can be used >> freely (of charge) for non commercial purposes only, but proprietary >> (one must purchase license) for commercial use. >> >> So I think this could

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Ian Jackson: >> In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less >> clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used >> to gain permission to combine the work with an AGPL work, especially >> if this is done in an "open core" context. > > Florian, are you still a

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Roberto: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less >> clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used >> to gain permission to combine the work with an AGPL work,

Re: upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

* Andrej Shadura: > Hi, > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 14:38, Eriberto Mota wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I have a basic doubt. >> >> A program called "test" was released by Bob over GPL-2+. This program >> got contributions from Ana and Chloe. The development was stopped some >> years later and, now, Ted

Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL

* Adam Borowski: > In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the > following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible: > > ## > I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification. > Thus, like any non-source form,

Re: Inquiry regarding Artistic License

* npdflr: > I chose to ask on mailto:debian-legal@lists.debian.org as I thought > this involves legal issues. “Legal issues” in this context largely mean issues related to Debian's policies regarding which software can be distributed. Debian chooses not to distribute a lot of software which it l

Re: Inquiry regarding Artistic License

* npdflr: > Thanks Florian and Daniel for your replies. > I would definitely file a bug. But if the author demands some money or > something else then would Debian.org take responsibility or I (users > of debian OS) have to take responsibility or both. It depends on how the demand for money is p

Re: Inquiry regarding Artistic License

* npdflr: > If I download package(s) from debian main which has artistic license > and if there is an issue regarding license being non-free (or the > author not approving the license to be used as per DFSG) then who > should I contact to solve the issue or in other words who would be > taking res

Re: GPL and the "system library" exception

* Ansgar Burchardt: > People have argued before that this applies to Debian. In that case > Debian wouldn't be able to distribute binaries of GPL-2-only programs > linking against any GPL-3+ runtime libraries like libstdc++? Or am I > missing something? Yes, I think we need the system library e

Re: no need to keep non-copylefted files that way in a copylefted project. (was Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence)

* Bradley M. Kuhn: > David Lamparter wrote: >> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes >> for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to >> try and honour the original author's requests. > > That's an odd request, since it contradicts

Re: redistribution of the ARIN TAL

* Marco d'Itri: > ARIN believes that they have a right to limit distribution of this RSA > public key (used for verification of routing security): > > https://www.arin.net/resources/rpki/arin-rfc7730.tal Do they actually do that? Prevent redistribution? If so, I can't find where. > Does every

Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence

* Paul Jakma: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roberto wrote: > >> On the other side, if I understood correctly, there are authors who >> want to contribute their code under GPL exclusively, and they feel >> that some of their changes got included into the bundled libraries >> (and are significant enough

Re: Bug#915537: MongoDB SSPL v1 license and the DFSG

* Apollon Oikonomopoulos: > What this section says (at least to my eyes), is that the SSPL requires > *all software* interfacing with MongoDB to form a "service" to be > licensed under the SSPL too. This is a much broader restriction than > linking, but still does not seem to violate DFSG #9. I

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

* Adam Jackson: > On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 22:56 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Motif has since been released under the LGPL, so this is largely >> of historic interest. >> >> Was the license of OpenMotif ever submitted to OSI? >> >> <http://www.openg

The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)

Motif has since been released under the LGPL, so this is largely of historic interest. Was the license of OpenMotif ever submitted to OSI? Debian clearly considered it non-DFSG-compliant, but I can't find a discussion why this was the case. In the

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Which is better, assignment of rights, or licensing rights? (Tentacles of Evil Test)

* Cem F. Karan: > When I use the term "assignment", I mean that the original > copyright/IP owner gives the ownership of the IP to some other > entity. The problem is that the new owner can choose new licensing > terms as they fit, as the IP is now their property. Choosing > licensing means that

Re: Which is better, assignment of rights, or licensing rights? (Tentacles of Evil Test)

* Cem F. Karan: > In my personal view, I think that Debian should lean towards licenses, > and discourage assignments where possible; that ensures that if > someone is a bad actor, then there will still be a chance to fork the > code and continue open development as all the good actors will still

Re: MongoDB Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

* Paul Wise: > For your convenience, I have included a full copy of the mail below, > which includes a justification section as well as full license terms. The license appears to be an unlicensed derivative work of the GPLv3, which is not itself licensed under a permissive license. I'm not sure

Re: MongoDB Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

* Xavier: >> From: Eliot Horowitz >> Date: Tue Oct 16 13:03:02 UTC 2018 >> Subject: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, >> Version 1 (SSPL v1) >> ... >> “If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version >> available to third parties as a service, you must make

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

* Thomas Preud'homme: > The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are: > > - Is a non-ultimate build DFSG ok? > - Does the ultimate build respect the GPLv3? > > I'm leaning towards yes (because no usage restriction, source > available, GPLv3 which allow redistribution with or w

Re: Running an external JBIG2 encoder if one exists

* Sean Whitton: > An upcoming release of OCRmyPDF, which I maintain in Debian, will call > jbig2 if it can be found on PATH, or gracefully degrade. On Debian, > this won't do anything, since we don't have that package. We have JBIG2 decoders, I think. Surely that is sufficient for OCR?

Re: SHA1 implementation by Steve Reid

* Carsten Leonhardt: > Florian Weimer writes: > >> The apparent intent, as evidenced by the copyright statement in the >> source code parts of RFC 6234, is that the code parts are available >> under that licensing option, even though they are not otherwise marked >>

Re: SHA1 implementation by Steve Reid

* Carsten Leonhardt: >> 1. What is wrong with the current SHA1 code/license? For me the >> license is very much like a BSD license and I don't see a problem with >> it on the license stand point. > > AFAIR the problem is that the RFC is not to be modified, and the code > came as part of the RFC, s

Re: DFSG + Hack typeface license with transition to proposed new source file build in Debian package

* Ian Jackson: > Debian is not likely to accept a restriction on modifying glyphs. We > consider that Debian (and its downstreams and users) must be free to > make changes - even changes that upstreams disapprove of. We have historically accepted restrictions like these: | The programs for comp

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

* Paul Jakma: > It's less clear to me though whether there is an issue on the copyright > and GPLv2+ licence side. The concern that has been raised with me is > that the Cisco grant is conditional and revocable with potential > royalties applying, while the GPLv2+ seems to require unconditional

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

* Philip Hands: > P.P.S. Does anyone really expect a consensus to emerge where we decide > to ignore the exception to the exception across the board without > consulting lawyers? I think there are several people in this thread > (myself included) that have demonstrated that they're going to argue

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

* Richard Fontana: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > >> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL >> program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program >> to be used along with OpenSSL, when they wher

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

* Adam Borowski: > The approach of commercial companies to both code and law is "it compiles? > Ship it!". They have sizeable legal departments, so the question they ask > themselves is not "is this legal?" but "are costs of possible litigation > smaller or greater than the cost of doing it corr

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Checking the ARL's scheme for releasing software

* Cem F. Karan: >> In the past, I think the main problem with U.S. government works was that >> some agencies merely repeated the legal situation regarding >> copyright in government works, and it was not very clear if those agencies >> intended to pursue copyright claims abroad (perhaps even >>

Re: Checking the ARL's scheme for releasing software

* Cem F. Karan: > The background: most works produced by the US Government (USG) do not have > copyright attached. As a result, ARL's lawyers believe that licenses that > rely on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0, GPL, etc.) could be challenged in court, > and declared invalid in toto, which means t

System libraries and the GPLv2 (was: Re: GnuTLS in Debian)

* Andreas Metzler: > Problems: > - > GnuTLS 2.12.x is dated. It is upstream's old-old-old stable release > (followed by 3.[012].x). The latest bugfix release happened in > February 2012, later security fixes have not been solved by releases but > by patches in GIT. GnuTLS 2.12.x does not w

Re: Include pieces of internal kernel header in GPL-3 project

* Jan Luca Naumann: > Hey, > > the problem is that this structure was in a uapi header until Linux 4.4 > but it was replaced by a new header file in this kernel version. I'm not > the upstream author of the code so I'm not sure if there is another way > to access the functionality used in the soft

Re: Include pieces of internal kernel header in GPL-3 project

* Jan Luca Naumann: > Hey, > > the project I want to package is "sedutil": > https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil > > The concrete problem/possible solution are described in my attempt to > fix it: > https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil/pull/56/commits/5ca6100917a025f6e11ae20

Re: would this custom license considered DFSG-free/GPL-compatible

* Yaroslav Halchenko: > Would you consider this short custom license DFSG-free and > compatible for reuse/integration within projects under more > permissive (MIT/BSD) or copyleft licenses such as GPL. (do not want > to burden/prime you with my analysis). > // 4. If anything other than configura

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

* Paul Wise: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Eriberto Mota wrote: > >> Can rockyou be packaged in Debian, considering that Kali will put a >> DFSG-compatible license for this wordlist? > > Kali certainly isn't the owner of the wordlist so they definitely > can't put a license on it. > > OTOH,

Re: EADL license

* Walter Landry: > The EADL data was created by US Government employees (Lawrence > Livermore). So there is no copyright in the US. Also, in the US, > there is no copyright in a set of facts. However, as a courtesy, you > should preserve the credits. Debian is also available in Europe, where t

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

* Paul R. Tagliamonte: > Have a link to 3-4 such webpages I can take a look at? “Copyright laws differ internationally. While a U.S. government work is not protectable under U.S. copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in these jurisdict

Re: licensed under GPL-2 but need to accept license dialog

* Mark Weyer: > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:29:31PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: >> OBS (https://obsproject.com/) is licensed under GPL-2. >> However, it needs to accept license dialog to use it when you start program. >> Is it dfsg-free one? I think it would be like click-wrap software. > > If i

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

* Dmitry Smirnov: > I'm seeking second opinion regarding mutation of the Expat license that can > be found in [1]. In particular, author added the following clause: > > The Software shall not be used nor made available to TESTTailor or any > individual or organization related or operated

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

* Ben Finney: > As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause > (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore > the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from > the terms when they redistribute the work. It's somewhat dou

Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing

* Ruben Undheim: > I guess that we are all set to include graywolf in Debian now? Yes, this should work, but you should include this permission notice in the sources, when you received it, and who sent it to you (not necessarily the name, the role in the organization is enough). This is importan

Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer

* Riley Baird: > The DD would not be allowed to package it with a 5 user limitation, > because then the DD would be imposing a restriction on the software, > not the upstream author. This is not quite correct. The user limit would just be a bug, subject to the usual bug fixing procedures in Debi

Re: Disclaimers in submitted patches

* Don Armstrong: > There's no real difference between a message with a disclaimer, and one > without. That depends on the contents of the disclaimer. > The only question is the actual license of the patch. If the person > authoring the patch grants a license (or the patch cannot be covered by >

Re: Freeness of code automatically generated from RFCs?

* Michael Gilbert: > I came across a curiosity while updating the wine package today. I > noticed that upstream wine generates one of their source files from > the contents of RFC3454 [0]. These days, the IETF has procedures covering data extraction from RFCs. It may make sense to ask them to a

Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#769716: iceweasel: downloads Cisco's OpenH264 video codec

* Chuck Peters: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=769716 > > It seems Mozilla, and Debian have an issues with the MPEG patent. When > might Debian distribute openh264 and MPEG LA source and binaries? Debian already distributes H.264 encoders and decoders, so there's no issue th

Re: confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation

* Ben Finney: > Florian Weimer writes: > >> * Paul Gevers: >> > [3] >> > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/tools/turbocharger/mod_gzip.c?h=debian-sid >> >> I don't think this file is even compiled, so its license does

Re: confirm apache 1 and gpl-1+ situation

* Paul Gevers: > [2] > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/lib/util/getoptx.h?h=debian-sid You should investigate if you can use the getopt from glibc, which is released under the LGPL. > [3] > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/xmlrpc-c.git/tree/tools/turbocha

Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

* Francesco Poli: > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:42:06 + Ian Jackson wrote: > >> Francesco Poli writes ("Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0"): >> > I am seeking help on bug #689919. >> >> I disagree with all of your objections to #689919. > > Could you please write a (short, but reasoned) point-by-point r

Re: GPL-3 & openssl: provide a -nossl variant for a library

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: > The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system > libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that > same operating system. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html > https://people.gnome.

Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF

* Turkey Breast: > The basic issue is that this project uses an AGPL license with > several additions, which we were given to me by the SFLC and vetted > by the FSF. They fix an issue with the AGPL which is unique to > Bitcoin (ability to distribute the source code when using a > service), add a l

Re: Trilinos licensing

* James Cloos: >> "NS" == Nico Schlömer writes: > > NS> I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer. > > Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US > federal government employees as part of their work cannot have > copyright; they are always in the

Re: Artwork License for package in main

* Dimitry Polivaev: > I still have one related question. Could you please explain how we can > protect Freeplane logo displayed in program splash screen and used in > program icons from being misused if all images are distributed under a > free license? What would you consider misuse? If you res

Re: Artwork License for package in main

* Felix Natter: > upstream of the Freeplane package changed the artwork for the splash > screen and the mimetype icon, and the (new) artist wants to keep all > rights and only grant the Freeplane project all rights of use. What does this mean exactly? "All rights of use" could mean "all commerci

Re: Trademark policy for ITP Percona XtraBackup

* Stewart Smith: >> Third, you may use the appropriate Percona mark to refer to a >> distribution of GPL-released Percona software that has been modified >> with minor changes for the sole purpose of allowing the software to >> operate on an operating system or hardware platform for which Percona

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

* Paul Tagliamonte: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change >> the >> BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/ >> 56.html). Th

Re: License Question

* Daniel Echeverry: > 2012/12/29 Florian Weimer > >> * Daniel Echeverry: >> >> > I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font >> > with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in >> > debian/copyright fil

Re: License Question

* Daniel Echeverry: > I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font > with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in > debian/copyright file? Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ.

Re: Bug#689095: Forces user to agree to terms of usage before running

* Paul Wise: > For the record, this is the string that is printed when you start it > for the first time: > > Transmission is a file-sharing program. When you run a torrent, its > data will be made available to others by means of upload. You and you > alone are fully responsible for exercising pro

Re: Bug#687693: ca-certificates: Cacert License is missing

* Raphael Geissert: > TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to > distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca- > certificates, Fedora says it is non-free. > > What do the others think about it? If we take CA certificate license sta

Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image

* Michelle Konzack: > This would even mean, if we work together, and I build the EPS filee and > I give it to you (the OSS guy) to review and continue the work on it, it > would be a violation of the Adobe License. I'm not sure. You need to check what the Adobe license says. We often make polic

Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image

* Michelle Konzack: > I have "Adobe Ilustrator" (just a standard installation from CD with the > legal serialnumber) runing under WINE and if I create an EPS, it has the > same header! > > Does this now mean, I have not the right to distrigbute my work freely? Probably yes. EPS files created by

Re: Intellectual disobedience

* Paul Wise: > http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/05/12/intellectual-disobedience/ > http://www.youtube.com/?v=dfGWQnj6RNA Whatever this is, it is too mainstream: | Unfortunately, this SME-music-content is not available in Germany | because GEMA has not granted the respective music publishing rights

Re: copyright law wackyness

* Bernhard R. Link: > * Florian Weimer [111225 18:30]: >> Germany has the same problem, I think, because in order to protect >> authors from distributors (which are often quasi-monopolistic), there >> are limits to what license grants authors can make. As a result, a >&

Re: copyright law wackyness

* Paul Wise: > Anyone else know of any weird copyright law around the world? The main problem here is that authors might change their mind and try to extract compensation from users which appear to be in compliance with the license, right? Germany has the same problem, I think, because in order

Re: copyright law wackyness

* Ben Finney: > You don't have to agree to the party licensing a work to you under the > Expat (for example) license terms; but you have the license in that work > regardless. Over here, such licensing texts are usually interpreted as offers to enter a contract (under the specified terms), which

Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

* Ken Arromdee: > Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds "or software that uses > this software". Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL? It may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@l

Re: Are ‘UniProt’ records complying with the DFSG ?

* Charles Plessy: > However, the page at the URL above points at Creative Commons' FAQ about > databases, which suggests that the file's contents are actually not > copyrightable. > > http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/ > http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/#dbcopyrigh

Re: CodeIgniter license

* Steve Langasek: > There is no requirement in Debian to track the copyright status of > the work beyond what's required by statute or by the licenses > themselves. If we do not track the copyright status, how can we make sure that the licensing conditions actually match the requirements of the D

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

* Don Armstrong: > You're conflating GPLv2 with v3. They are very different with regards > to the System Library exception, as I explained in my original > message. Please consider rereading it and pointing out precisely where > I have misread the license along with supporting quotations from the

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

* Stefan Hirschmann: > My opion is that this behavior is not good for Debian's reputation and > the project should take legal action against the lawyer and this > company. >From what I've read, it is not clear at all whether a lawyer actually sent anything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l

Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case

* Andrew Ross: > "In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public > License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created > or manipulated using iText." What is a "producer line"? Is this visible on the page, or is this some information in the PDF header? In a

Re: CodeIgniter license

* Steve McIntyre: > Ben Finney wrote: >>Its requirement for the modifier's name to be recorded is also a >>concern. I think the “Dissident” test is violated by this. > > Which means nothing; it has no solid grounding in the DFSG. We need to keep track of the copyright situation of a work, otherw

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

* Don Armstrong: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Don Armstrong: >> >> > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK >> >> I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library >> exception. It is

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

* Don Armstrong: > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible (although it is not

Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8

* Khaled Hosny: > Fonts are art, many font designer are very concerned about the > authenticity of their designs and wouldn't allow modified version to > carry the names of their fonts, it is very valid concern. There's also the more pressing concern that altering widths will lead to changed line

Re: msntp license

* Charles Plessy: > I think that Clause 1 disallows for-profit distribution. Can a redistributor > burn a CD and sell it with financial benefit without express written consent > of > the copyright holders of MSNTP? You can't do that with software released under the Artistic license, either, that

Re: msntp license

* Charles Plessy: >> Excerpt from the license: " 1. You may distribute MSNTP or components of >> MSNTP, with or without additions developed by you or by others. No charge, >> other than an "at-cost" distribution fee, may be charged for copies, >> derivations, or distributions of this material wit

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Matthias Klose: > On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Steve Langasek: >> >>> It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this >>> issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard >>&

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Steve Langasek: > It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this > issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard > this issue as critical for Ubuntu. My personal impression is that Debian does not view this issue as critical, either. Swi

Re: Are debian/ubuntu distributions "commercial applications" from a legal point of view?

* Laszlo Lebrun: > What about free (as a beer), freely distributable by anyone, but > copyrighted components, which might be used without any restriction > "excepted when adding value to commercial applications"? > > Can the copyright holder sue (with good chances of success) a debian > distrib

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

* MJ Ray: > cate wrote: >> Eugen Dedu wrote: >> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses >> I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the >> "any use" doesn't include distribution of software. >> For this reason I think it is safe to classify it

Re: issues with the AGPL

* Miriam Ruiz: > All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in > other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too? There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany. Over here, free software licenses are typically considered invitations to enter

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Kalle Olavi Niemitalo: > Please consider also the effect of GCC 4.4 on GPLv2-only applications, > where the application's licence requires source code under GPLv2, > including the source code of libgcc if GCC accompanies the executable, > but the source code of libgcc in GCC 4.4 is not available

Re: "re" module and old Python 1.6 (GPL incompatible) license?

* Anderson Lizardo: > I noticed that some files of the "re" module still have the (GPL > incompatible) 1.6 license notice. Is that on purpose or > unintentionally forgotten? It is generally assumed that the PSF license grant in the LICENSE file overrides all the other licenses that apply to indiv

Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.

* Charles Plessy: > - The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore >does not have special requirements for binary distributions. This is incorrect. If the binary includes copyright statements to display them, you may not remove them (see §5 (d) in the GPL version

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

* Florian Weimer: > I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first > clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know > for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably best not to > make GCC 4.4 the default compiler in sid/sq

Re: php5-xapian: PHP licence vs GPL

* Olly Betts: > It's possible this FAQ entry may not have been updated for GPLv3 - I > notice that it talks about PHP4, which is obsolete now, and PHP5 predates > GPLv3. Yes, I think this may be the case. > I guess Florian's thinking is based on additional restrictions allowed > by GPLv3 7c: > >

  1   2   3   4   5   >