Re: BSD license + should

Michael Banck writes: > If not, can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it > DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the > package if they publish results based on its use)? , 12.g. Hendrik

Re: JPL Planetary Ephemeris DE405

Ole Streicher writes: > I think that these files are public domain: First, they are originated > by nasa.gov, which is a U.S. governmental institution, and so they are > PD by law. This is only true within the United States. Internationally, U.S. govt works are still protected and distribution r

Re: EADL license

Walter Landry writes: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> Debian is also available in Europe, where the U.S. government is not >> barred by U.S. law from obtaining and enforcing copyright of its >> works. Europeanl law also has copyright-like protections for certain >> collections of facts. > > In p

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

Charles Plessy writes: > so you wrote on your blog six years ago that distributing works done by US > government institutions is "a trap". Do you have concrete examples of cases > where people fell in that trap and got hurt since then ? The "trap" is a reference to the similar situation in Java

Re: Status of US Government Works in foreign countries

Rytis writes: > US Goverment public domain issue has been discussed a few times in this > mailing list [1]. According to the interpretation by [2], this would > fall into public domain abroad as well and second part of the above > licence snippet may be unenforceable. Unfortunately, this interpr

Citation requirements

Hello, I've come across a piece of software that has a requirement in its license text mandating to cite a certain set of works in scientific publications for which the software has been used. I vaguely remember that such citation requirement clauses were generally considered to be non-free (see,

Re: Winetricks may be inciting copyright infringement

Nick Oosterhof writes: > Winetricks is part of contrib, and the debian website states "Every > package in contrib must comply with the DFSG." [1]. > > If winetricks turns out to be DFSG incompatible (the requirement of > having a MS Windows license suggests that is the case), maybe it > should be

Re: Winetricks may be inciting copyright infringement

Ricardo Mones writes: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:07:17PM +0200, Hendrik Weimer wrote: >> Mateusz Jończyk writes: >> >> > Unfortunately, many libraries that it distributes are illegal to install on >> > Linux or it is legal to install them under limited cir

Re: Winetricks may be inciting copyright infringement

Mateusz Jończyk writes: > Unfortunately, many libraries that it distributes are illegal to install on > Linux or it is legal to install them under limited circumstances (such as > having a Windows license). So what? winetricks is not part of main, so it is the responsibility of the user to ensur

Re: Public Domain again

Jérémy Lal writes: > Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends > on the country you're in. What if that country applies > laws that violate DFSG ? I think you have to distinguish between two cases. 1.) Someone releases some code that is accompanied with a statement along the lines

Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker

"Bernhard R. Link" writes: > * Hendrik Weimer [15 15:50]: >> US government works are only in the public domain when distributed >> within the US. In all other countries that have signed the Berne >> Convention you still need a license, which should also

Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker

Charles Plessy writes: > The public-domain short name is reserved for cases where the work is > really in the public domain in the strict legal sense of it; this is a > rare case (for instance, some works of U. S. government employees). US government works are only in the public domain when dist

Re: Fwd: Re: RFS: wmaker

Rodolfo kix Garcia writes: > Copyright: 1997, Marco van Hylckama Vlieg > License: public-domain > They may be distributed freely and/or modified as long as the original > Author is mentioned! This is different from public domain. Just use a generic name such as "attribution" instead for the f

Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

Ken Arromdee writes: > Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds "or software that uses > this software". > > If I interpret this broadly (all software that uses this software must > display the sentence) it's non-free, since it imposes conditions on > non-derived software that happens t

Re: How to use (free!) sources of other projects without copyright/license information in file?

Michael Tautschnig writes: > Both of the packages claim to be GPL'ed as per COPYING, and I wonder whether > this is acceptable for Debian. Probably it is, as ax25-apps is in > main. While the GPL strongly recommends putting copyright notices in each source file, it does not require to do so. In

Re: Auto-acceptance of license by download a problem for 'main'?

Michael Hanke writes: > | Your contribution of software and/or data to (including prior > | to the date of the first publication of this Agreement, each a > | "Contribution") and/or downloading, copying, modifying, displaying, > | distributing or use of any software and/or data from > |

Re: Lawyer request stop from downloading Debian

Ken Arromdee writes: > It's my understanding that in Germany lawyers can do this to copyright > violators even though they are not the copyright holder. This is not true. Under German competition law, someone can hire a lawyer to send a cease-and-desist letter to a competitor if they are gaining

Re: Question about the criteria for a library to be in contrib

Michael Wild writes: > So, this means that ViennaCL must Depends: on some OpenCL > implementation. Currently the only one packaged in Debian (still in > experimental) I can find is the one from NVIDIA. So, this probably means > then that it really has to go into contrib, right? Unfortunately, ye

Re: Question about the criteria for a library to be in contrib

Michael Wild writes: > On 04/05/2011 03:23 AM, Hendrik Weimer wrote: >> Michael Wild writes: >> >>> I find this hard to believe, since the package only uses the free >>> and publicly available API defined by the Khronos group and it is >>> u

Re: Question about the criteria for a library to be in contrib

Michael Wild writes: > I find this hard to believe, since the package only uses the free and > publicly available API defined by the Khronos group and it is up to the > user of the package against which implementation of OpenCL he wishes to > link. How is this different from Java before OpenJDK

Re: scientific paper in package only in postscript form non-free?

Noel David Torres Taño writes: >> Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems >> quite possible for a years-old journal paper. > > It can happen that the scientific paper has non-free copyright: it > uses to be attributed to the journal where first published. Not the ca

Re: distributing a restricted branding icon OK?

Gabriel Burt writes: > Is changing http://www.emusic.com/favicon.ico to a PNG "modifying" it? > > Assume it's not, would we be OK including that image in our Debian > package of Banshee? The way iceweasel handles non-free search engine logos is to download them into the user's local profile when

Re: data "copyright" or not -- what is Debian's take?

Yaroslav Halchenko writes: > Should I advise to blindly attach a copyright statement and > license, possibly copyrighting non-copyrightable, thus committing > "Copyfraud" in some jurisdictions? Probably not, as this would be illegal in said jurisdictions. > What would be the take of Debian ftp

Re: situation of imapsync and Debian

[ Recipients stripped to debian-legal ] Gergely Risko writes: > I do not have the legal skills to discuss wether your webpage and your > distribution policy of imapsync > (http://www.linux-france.org/prj/imapsync/) is compatible or not with > the debian social contract. I will leave this to the

Re: Providing an openssl-linked pycurl

MJ Ray writes: > I think the suggestion is that software using python-pycurl would not > change if they were using openssl or gnutls. I don't understand how > the GPL'd software is derived from openssl if it works interchangably > with gnutls on the other side of pycurl. Can you explain? Even

Re: LGPL code that includes files licensed under Sun Public License 1.0 - DFSG-free?

tony mancill writes: > I'm not saying that they are unchanged in the source distribution of libjxp, > but that the upstream author says that the files that were released as part > of JavaCC under the SPL license are the same files (meaning they have the > same content) as the files now under the

Re: LGPL code that includes files licensed under Sun Public License 1.0 - DFSG-free?

Tony Mancill writes: > We've requested that the upstream author release a new upstream version > with the updated license, and are waiting for his reply. But I wanted > to ask the list if that is strictly necessary, given that we know the > contents of the files, save for the license, haven't ch

Re: RFS: ognl

Matthew Johnson writes: > I don't like: > > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called > * "OpenSymphony" > *or "OGNL", nor may "OpenSymphony" or "OGNL" appear in their > *name, without prior written permission of the OpenSymphony > *Group. > > since we are, arguably,

Re: LGPL code that includes files licensed under Sun Public License 1.0 - DFSG-free?

Tony Mancill writes: > * The Original Code is JavaCC. The Initial Developer of the Original > * Code is Sun Microsystems, Inc. Portions Copyright 1996-2002 Sun > * Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. JavaCC (https://javacc.dev.java.net/) seems to have been relicensed under the revised BSD li

Re: Using NASA Imagery

"Bernhard R. Link" writes: > If this is the case, then I guess we have quite an big problem, as I > guess such code and especially data is to be found in quite a large > amount of places. Actually, I don't think that's much of an issue. Software seems to be mostly unaffected as US government ent

Re: Using NASA Imagery

"Bernhard R. Link" writes: > * Don Armstrong [090117 20:01]: >> Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it >> produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of >> public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to >> figure out whether th

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

Josselin Mouette writes: > Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit : >> The only >> case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a >> package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of >> other cases, I wo

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

MJ Ray writes: > Hendrik Weimer wrote: >> It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other >> distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign, >> BTW. > > Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

MJ Ray writes: > Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as > fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try > to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to > be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyer

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

Kern Sibbald writes: > I personally don't believe that such distribution is a problem -- > after all Debian does distribute pure GPLv2 code and OpenSSL source > code on the same ISO image. This should not be a problem anyway as it falls under the "mere aggregation" clause. > Problems of mismatc

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

Kern Sibbald writes: > 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution > violates the GPL license). The question is whether it is legal to distribute the Bacula sources (including parts depending on OpenSSL) to begin with. These are uncertain legal grounds to say the leas

Re: Liberation Font License revisited

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:08 +0200 Hendrik Weimer wrote: > >> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] >> > Did you point RMS' message [4] out to the FSF when you contacted them? >> >>

Re: Liberation Font License revisited

ch licenses to be invalid. However, this seems not to be the case now, no matter whether the FSF changed their mind or not. Hendrik -- *** OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software for GNU/Linux and more *** *** http://www.osreviews.net/ ***

Liberation Font License revisited

are the copyright holders, they are within their rights to do it the way they did.' This should make this license acceptable for Debian, right? Best regards, Hendrik Weimer [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36584.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg