trademarks [Was: Re: Ubuntu trademark non-free?]

Hello list, it follows some comments, corrections and questions about trademarks, based on Steve answer; not realyl relevant to the initial question/bug. On 11.08.2010 07:27, Steve Langasek wrote: If the source code of a package shipped in Debian is identical to that provided upstream under th

Re: Another extended BSD licence :-/

On 17.08.2010 13:39, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, I have been asked to provide packages for a small piece of software that uses this licence: This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arisi

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

Florian Weimer wrote: * 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 cl

Re: Are these licenses DFSG?

Eugen Dedu wrote: Hi, We have a bug report, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses of various plugins of opal package, and I do not know if the licenses involved are DFSG-free. Could you please tell me if these plugins are allowed to be in debian main? The mai

Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source

Patrick Matthäi wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray schrieb: Patrick Matthäi wrote: GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation. It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with patches and issues. [...] Currently I see only three options:

Re: Intel IA32 EL License (revisited)

dann frazier wrote: A couple of years ago I started a thread about the Intel IA-32 EL License here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00198.html It didn't get much feedback and I didn't manage to find someone at Intel at that time. Recently I was put into contact with the appropr

Re: Verifying licence for packaging

Jeff Epler wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:48:47AM +0300, Michael Gvirtzman wrote: Full text as of this date: Golden Rules Organizer v1.4 - End User License Agreement --

Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died

ha...@volny.cz wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but: 1) It is clear that the author wished his work to be distributed as freely as circumstances allow. Is it really clear? So why did not he distribute the sources? ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org w

Re: PS documentation file, no sources, author died

Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message <20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx>, Matthew Johnson writes On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: I would really like to distribute the documentation file but the upstream author died recently [6] and the chances are small that the sources ca

Re: Empty source file with proprietary header

Mehdi Dogguy wrote: Hi all, While packaging a software for Debian, I found an empty file under a proprietary license in upstream's tarball. The file contains only the header which says who is the copyright holder and the license under which it was released. There is no source code in it, at all.

Re: is the Clearthought Software License free?

Andrew Donnellan wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM, jochen georges wrote: hello debian-legal team, i wrote a small java-app which i want to make a deian package from. the code, that i wrote is under gpl, but i used the "TableLayout"-library which has the following licence (see:https://tab

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

Robert Millan wrote: For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, the second uses "LGPL 2.1 or later" and the third uses "GPL 3" then the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to s

Re: distributing precompiled binaries

Dave Howe wrote: MJ Ray wrote: So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument come from? References, please! PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones. However, they are entirely interpreted - the output of a pdf "compiler" would be a static image

FLTK License

Hello list! I'm sponsoring the libflkt2, but I've some troubles with the FLTK licenses [included at the end of this message]. The "FLTK License, May 2001" is included in the proposed libfltk2, and the "FLTK License, December 2001" is already included in Debian, in libfltk1.1. - It seems it to f

Re: Missing licenses in upstream source files

Ben Finney wrote: [note: quotations in random order] (We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.) Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g. the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of license. That's not enough for Deb

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 16 mars 2009 à 11:18 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? I don’t think so, but maybe an open source evangelist would have better luck. try the "coun

Re: Short copyright notice in script file

Alexander Block wrote: Hello, I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying. I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice: # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston # This code may be freely used a

Re: firmware-nonfree : ipw2200 ?

Frank Lin PIAT wrote: Hirllow On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 08:05 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:15:10AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: I have just tested Lenny on a laptop[1] with an Intel Pro Wireless 2200 chipset. As you probably known the kernel module ipw2200 requires a non-fre

Re: codecs and totem

Alexander Rozhkov wrote: Good day. I have a question: if I use totem or vlc (both provided by debian) to watch commercially distributed DVD discs, do I have to pay royalty for using codecs? If yes, to whom should I pay? Hello Alexander, As far I know, Debian doesn't distribute codecs and soft

Re: Intel microcode CPU (#3)

Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems / which include a Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed / to or by you. You are not authorized to

Re: logwatch: list of copyright holders

Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Willi Mann wrote: Can you explain to me what the consequences of an imcomplete list of copyright holders would be? It should make it easier for me to argue upstream. The most important one is that not having all of the copyright holders represented mea

Re: Intel microcode CPU (#3)

Joe Smith wrote: / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of / installation in the BIOS or Operating System of computer systems / which include a Genuine Intel microprocessor sold or distributed / to or by you. You are not authorized to use this mat

Re: Licensing of iso-codes

Tobias Toedter wrote: Hi, we, the maintainers of iso-codes[1], are currently discussing a licensing issue and are seeking some opinions from -legal subscribers. The problem is as follows: The package iso-codes provides XML files with certain ISO lists (e.g. language codes, country codes etc.) a

Re: A use case of GPLv3 section 7b

Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 00:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Hi all, I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is actually used to impose specific restrictions. PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development. It is released under the term

Re: (C) vs ©

Ben Finney wrote: Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have heard that in copyright declarations like: Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. --- it is incorrect to use (C) in place of the symbol © which is the strict copyright symbol. Is this so? If

Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

Jan Minar wrote: Package: microcode.ctl Version: 1.11-1 Severity: normal Hi, people! CC-ing upstream, as it applies to them rather than to Debian, and debian-legal, as it will end up there anyways. IMO, the microcode update license forbids the way of re-distribution as it is used currently by

xchat is now shareware in windoze

Hello. Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat), I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences: > Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed? > A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still > download the source code, released under the G.P.L. > You may use X-Cha

Re: Requiring registration of GPL software

Danilo Piazzalunga wrote: Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the a

Re: CA certificates

Nathanael Nerode wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate certificates): The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It al

Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards

Brian M. Carlson wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:12:28PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote: As mentioned in my previous mail, I am creating a package for hashcash. The source for the package includes a document, fip180-1.txt, which is a copy of the Federal Information Processing Standards Publicat

Re: debian-legal review of licenses

Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: * Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-13 04:09]: Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an Are the OSI lists public (sorry, cannot check, I'm off-line at the moment waiting for my plane to Malaga)? Is anyon

Re: Legal status of software licences

Aigars Mahinovs wrote: Hello all I am reading a document by OSDL, namely: http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is the click trough licen

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Branden Robinson wrote: Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark

Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.22

Hello. In parport.h header file: /* * Any part of this program may be used in documents licensed under * the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version * published by the Free Software Foundation. */ No other notices. 1) Do this file be licensed under GPL2 (as main COP

Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.21

/* * if_ppp.h - Point-to-Point Protocol definitions. * * Copyright (c) 1989 Carnegie Mellon University. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are * duplicated in all such form

Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.20

/* * Linux ARCnet driver - COM20020 chipset support - function declarations * * Written 1997 by David Woodhouse. * Written 1994-1999 by Avery Pennarun. * Derived from skeleton.c by Donald Becker. * * Special thanks to Contemporary Controls, Inc. (www.ccontrols.com) * for sponsoring the fu

Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.19

Hello! The part III, headers files. Some questions about licences, they should be DFSG compatible, but I see some small problems. Although the DWN of two weeks ago, the check is not yet terminated, (and there is still a lot of works to do, but the remaining parts are less importat: the driver an