Sam Hocevar zoy.org> writes:
>FWIW, there are no plans to change the official logo licensing as far
> as I know. Unless someone comes up with a suggestion that complies with
> trademark law, it will have to remain non-free if we want it to serve
> the purpose it was created for.
Does it serv
Hi,
Yaroslav Halchenko onerussian.com> writes:
> My questions to the list now:
>
> 1. Do we have to list all copyright holders + licenses per each piece of
> software distributed within a package?
The opinion of the ftp-masters ist that we do have to:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport
Michael Gilbert gmail.com> writes:
>
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> > That being said, packages that exist solely to download external
> > non-free content have traditionally been considered contrib material.
> > If this is just a helper script that nothing else in the package uses,
> > it seems perfec
/bugreport.cgi?bug=350624;msg=142;att=0
is not only not-helpful-at-all, it's really discouraging to see a
discussion ending like this. Well, in that particular case I'd
understand if you don't answer to the bug, but the reasoning could be
published elsewhere where Mr. $greps_for_his_name_on_debian_lists cannot
answer easily.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
aybe we need a new start and a different
format. But it's a pity that there's no way to get the ftpmasters'
opinion except by trying, and no regular way at all, it seems, to get
the reasons for their decisions.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Fold
":
"little basis" seems overly subjective to me, but besides that:
Check
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
pany_is_registered" is a very common clause
in written german selling or service contracts, not only but in
particular if you buy online.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
cussion; with
no other GR have there been so many "this has been said elsewhere"
(where? IRC?) statements by so many people, without trying to sum up on
a web page or similar.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
e kernel people
when the driver was released as .c and .h files under the GPL.
So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the
particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
happened to". It's for sale now, labeled "sarge".
No, it isn't labelled "sarge".
> Sorry to say such things and possibly raise conflictual feelings, but do you
> really feel this is *right*?
Even if it is not, it's off-topic on -legal. Please continue
saves users from
tracing the origin of some help document from the screen display to a
file on the disk, to a package that installed the file, and finally to
its copyright file.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
e hints :-)
Then you should really try to persuade him to use the software's
license, because only that way it's easily possible to copy strings from
the manual to online docs, comments etc., and vice versa.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
oted in the copyright file, I'm not going to file a serious bug over it.
Yes, I guess that's the attitude I should also take myself in the cases
where there's no possibility to reach/convince upstream. Except
dropping the file, of course, if the restriction is *not* ineffective.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
"Andrew Saunders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
>> documentation that has been approved by -legal.
>
> Actually, the MIT license[1]
s will probably be DFSG free from their next release on, but we
don't know when that's going to happen. Finally there's the GFDL, which
is a *bad* license, but DFSG-free by GR if the document does not include
any of the GFDL's invariant section options (for the details, read the
levant"
restrictions, with the question what's relevant depending on the
individual case.
Can you help me out? Is there any consensus in debian-legal? I'd
rather get some general guidelines, otherwise I expect myself boring
-legal with similar questions all the time...
TIA, Frank
n probably make an symlink or some other
> alias while complying with this, so it's more comedy than a bug.
Yes, it's as simple as
mv ukhyphen.tex britpat.tex
$EDITOR britpat.tex
echo "britpat.tex ukhypen.tex" >> /usr/share/texmf-tetex/aliases
Regards, Frank
--
Fra
I also am not allowed to call my GPL'ed work "Mac OS X
Tiger" ;-).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
e person who settled this restrictive license
actually has the right to do so - while he's the current maintainer, he
is said to not have contributed much, the former maintainer agreed on
LPPL, and originally the data were in the public domain...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
as the package was
> created by reverse-engineering a proprietary protocol.
The xml files in the glade subdirectory, as well as the images don't
have a license statement (at least not in their svn repository).
Shipping a copy of the GPL in the distribution does not mean that every
file
e. But it would be *really* boring to
do the work alone. And it would also be much less interesting to do the
work in a company with traditional organization. Therefore, the fact
that Debian is a social entity, too, with a particular culture,
contributes to my motivation to work for it.
Regard
the software is perfect, no need to rephrase
anything. The non-existent statement for the Documentation is the
problem.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
ht be a
false-friend like translation, in german a music score for many
instruments is called "partitur".
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
ks which get reintegrated start that way, too.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
l) it has
> been changed.
Could it be that what Justin is looking for is actually a statement that:
Packages that contain *contrib* material which is "well-separated and not
required for the operation of the package" can go into main?
That one is true, I'm sure, althoug
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To summarize, I think that, if those documents are actually modified in
> MS Word Doc format by their actual maintainers, then their source code
> is really in MS Word Doc format.
I agree.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecu
"missing source".
Where the files exported a long time ago, and are now maintained as html
files? Or are they newly exported every release?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
PL.
You are right. Let's just remove it, it's obsolete cruft anyway, useful
only for some hypothetical centuries-old documents.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Hi debian-legal,
Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 15:14 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> ,
>> | %%% Copyright (C) 1994 Aloysius G. Helminck. All rights reserved.
>> | %%% Permission is granted to to customize the declaration
No problem.
>
> Sounds good to me.
Except that the reasoning is wrong, as Matthew Palmer pointed out.
That's similar, but probably even more strict than the german legal
"soll": "soll ist muss wenn kann".
Gruß, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
D license is GPL compatible, isn't it? (I know the
> original BSD license isn't)
That doesn't matter. GPL-compatibility or copyleft ist *not* a
requirement of the DFSG, not at all.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
other
examples, because the discussion finally came to a consensus, or at
least a resolution, which is not so obvious in the GFDL case...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
en yes, I think
> that could be a problem regardless of whether the license is MPL or GPL.
We always distribute the source code; but we don't *archive* the source
code after there's been a new upload with new source code. That's no
problem with the GPL, but it appears to be with the
clearly divided up by visual separators
> - the individual sections numbered sequentially
> - a table of contents at the start
We already have some of this, the visual separators could be more
visible...
> Incidentally, is the Artistic License the same as the one in
> /usr/share/common-l
Do debian-legal folks agree that in this case it is okay to violate the
words of the Policy and go for a separate licenses.texts file?
If you think that this is not acceptable, what else would you suggest to
actually make the copyright file useful?
TIA, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Sp
erpret that as "note that down,
but care for the real licensing problems first" - there are plenty of
them.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
onsensus that "This file is in the public domain" grants us enough
rights to distribute it in main, or non-free, or not at all.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
ave to contact the author and let him clarify this,
>> or can I leave things as they are?
The fact is that there's at least one file like this in tetex-base. And
I'm not sure whether the copyright holder can still be reached.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecul
copyright holder is from a country where it has.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
ost.
Sorry - I didn't even read so far, it seems. If I had, I'd asked
differently.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
al)
information about how to install the package and report bugs, and a
list of files in the package.
Many thanks in advance,
Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
ile in a source tarball has a license
information, a separate LICENSE or COPYING file is nice, but not
necessary at all. The other issue is a question of rpm/Fedora packaging
policy which I can't comment on.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I've tried contacting Janusz Nowacki on 28 Apr 2005 and 14 Sep 2005
>>> but received no answer. He's obviously aliv
27;t package anything additional; howeer the TeX task force is open
to making their (Type1) fonts available to the non-TeX public (actually,
Norbert joined the newly founded font team).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
he
license because of chmod or similar - simply because it is the normal
state in the computer world, even on Windows systems, that stuff is
not-world readable. Or in other words because this restriction would
make the whole license void, and that can't be what the licensor
intended.
Regards
if the problems you have are not actual license
incompatibilities, but an incomplete debian/copyright file, and
obviously lack of knowledge (and care before the first upload) about the
license status of the individual files.
There's nothing special about packages that contain differently lic
vative work, you may also remove the back
cover text." be helpful?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
tlines are in fact the preferred form of modification for the author,
and I see no reason not to accept this as source in the sense of the
DFSG, since there doesn't seem to be anything better. Consequently, the
fonts would be free.
What do you think?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Mol
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>>> > The reason for this is that building (
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote:
>
>> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> > The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
>> >
>> > * depe
might try. Have you
> tried yourself?
dpkg -L tetex-doc tetex-doc-nonfree | grep /usr/share/doc/texmf
> Have you be in touch with the author (explaining the
> problem)?
With some, yes.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
edded fonts, is not even in the sources?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
, it's technically possible to extract it again (and even if it
is subsetted, you just have to collect enough documents to get all
glyphs). So if it is technically possible to extract and reuse the
font, but forbidden by the license, this is non-free.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Mo
sources, I'm going to put them in the same source
package, even if the sources could go to contrib.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
graph and page breaking
still makes sense, especially in the two cases that are a PDF
presentation.
> Fixing source in order to make it actually rebuildable with the declared
> Build-Depends should not be left to the users...
tetex-base does not rebuild documentation and does not B
? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly
> magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...)
For a texinfo file, it's of course easy. For many LaTeX package
documentation files, often created from dtx files, it is *that*
difficult, as I already explained in this thread.
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free.
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
&
recollection that fonts are handled specially because of
some special reason.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>>> How do you fix errors in the document?
>
>> By waiting for upstream to release a new version.
>
> Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix er
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I forgot to answer one question - please follow up to devel if you want
to discuss this, since it isn't a legal issue.
> If the usual dtx mantra:
>
> pdflatex .dtx
> makeindex -s gind.ist
> makeindex -s gglo.ist -o .gls .gl
t change,
we'd have to rework all the spacing and page breaking, and probably
rather put it into contrib (or non-free if that's the only example,
since we already have a package with non-free stuff but none with
contrib).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectrosco
; |wc -l
337
at least not in a reasonable timeframe.
And it still doesn't answer my question whether we can distribute
documents prepared with a non-free, distributable font.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
on-free font, it would be trivial
to "free" its source by simply commenting the line in the source. I'd
rather avoid that, because I think it bloats the diff.gz without adding
any value, but I wouldn't care much.
But the important question is whether we can distribute that
nt (PDF) in the binary package, and the sources in the source
package?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
filing bugs will do you no good.
>> > Sorry.
> (...)
> That readme seems at least borderline trolling to me. I hope that's
> not intentional.
I hope that, too. #353833.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Huerlimann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some
>> bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm curr
n... No more FOSS
> development for today.
Has nobody volunteered to package one of the three autotools doc
packages in non-free?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
tive works be labeled; and there's a warranty
> disclaimer.
And when you violate the license by distributing modified versions with
misleading information, you loose your right to copy and use the
software. But that's not a freeness problem, I guess.
> I think this is clearly DFS
; http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
>
> Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
> http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
article. A particular germ
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:44:33AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> By contrast, if t
y not transmit the document *at all* if I am stuck with
>> an ASCII-only medium.
>
> I guess you've never heard of UUENCODE.
That won't help: If the device is not capable of uudecoding and
displaying the resulting Japanese, the license requirement cannot be
fulfilled.
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In practice, this means that the version string displayed in the file
> log of a LaTeX run will be different, and that the user, or a developer
> of a package that uses "the work", has the possibility to check for the
> ver
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
>>> would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
>>> changes reasonably.
>
&g
each separately.
Anyway: would, in your opinion, a restriction be acceptable to change
either the version or, as long as there's no technical solution yet that
includes this version in the API, the font name?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
nt, etc., and in consequence
to a much less correct rendering.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
that
> can be dropped into a system without changing other software,
> it ain't free.
You can never distribute a bugfixed version of a font with the same name
(identifiers, ...) and, without changing other software, get the same
system behavior. That's not a question of freeness, it's a technical
problem.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
n where "use the same as for
the program" is not applicable
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Hi Evan, hi all,
is there any public information about the progress in the talks with CC
about clarification/amelioration/whatever of their licenses?
TIA, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
#x27;s true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
> As far as LaTeX goes, the LPPL has been fixed, though there is still a
> need to do a license audit to check for packages which add additional
> restrictions.
... and for packages with non-free docs. Any help is appreciated.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
want to do that
> (and with the current behavior of publishers, I bet most won't want to), they
> need to get separate permission from the author.
I was also searching for a solution like this; typefaces and cover art
should "work".
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecu
NCE
> of statements or instructions...".
Pedro, which definition of object code should I use instead?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
our commitments to our users.
Got your point.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
does the law say about distributing printed copies of things (PDF
files, cool pictures, whatever) that you do not have any license for -
may I print a picture from any website and hang it up on the university
blackboard?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
27;re dealing
here with legal aspects of creating a Linux distribution, and therefore
the language and thinking of lawyers does and should have an impact on
the outcome of the discussion...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
ividual legalese text if it can plainly be
seen at the cash desk, or if you are referred to it in an online-shop.
The german original text is at
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
S
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> since I couldn't find it in the archive, I have to ask here: Has it been
>> discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a
>> GPL'ed document
it under the program's license), but wants to
restrict commercial trade of the printed version, and therefore assumes
the second interpretation, would such a document qualify for Debian
(main, of course)?
TIA, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:50:32PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > Do you know which person we could contact among the X.org people?
>
> More context, please. Which fonts?
In this special case, it's about the Utopia fonts
Hi,
it just occurred to me that the X strike force might be a better place
to ask this:
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear debian-legal people,
>
> Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It is quite odd that on the one hand Adobe says that al
o
license statement", but included in gsfonts-other-nonfree because of the
license statement on CTAN, the origin of which is now unclear.
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
>> 4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
>
> Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
s/instead/, too/
Regards, F
;s release in
comparison to the license update and teTeX release that we currently
have this situation, and that most authors chose the LPPL because they
wanted a free license. I also think that if we left teTeX out of sarge
we wouldn't do ourselves a favor, but rather offend sensibilities o
o sort out whether the files do have a "or later"
clause?
I hope not - I have other things to do this summer, Debian related and
mostly not.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
sition strategy could be made that would allow old code with
unknown or unreachable authors in the package if it is marked a such,
but require a rewrite if substantial changes have to be made anyway.
Regards, Frank
[1] at least if the code is complex enough to warrant a copyright at all.
--
e
> should have known that binary firmware existed in the kernel before.
Is this relevant? He contributed code to a GPL'ed project, assuming that
all of the project meets the license requirements. Do you expect every
contributor to check the copyright status of every file in the project?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) schrieb:
> Debian NotBSD ;-)
Plus Debian FearBSD and Debian OvenBSD (or UponBSD?)
Bye, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:09:37PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> does anybody know what is going to happen with regard to LPPL-1.3, and
>> in which timeline? The latest mails I found were
>>
>> http://lists.de
l auto matically be flagged as conffiles by this
| program, so there is no need to list them manually in
| package.conffiles.
`
If there's no way to override this, one can instead copy them there in
postinst.
Bye, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
>>
>>> Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
>>> it.
>>
>> You're
-free LPPL. I guess it will be much easier to convince the author to
re-license his package if I can tell him that LPPL is also DFSG-free.
Thank you, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
