Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate
>> overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL
>> documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but
>> distributed in binary form in the correct packag
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's basically a copyleft scheme.
No, it's not. The GPL doesn't restrict what I do with copies I make
(but don't distribute). The GFDL does. See the example in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00051.html
--
Jam
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you believe the GFDL is DFSG compliant it there are no
> Acknowledgements, Dedications, Invariant Sections or Cover Texts?
No. This part of section 2 is particularly problematic:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package
> is installed.
> So, from the user point of view, I
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
> important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
> that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
> persons Copyright.
Err, what complete
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It doesn't appear that we have the right to redistribute the
> Sandrof code.
[...]
> I highly recommend that you file a bug requesting the removal of
> this package.
No. Check the other ircii-based packages; Michael retro-actively
re-licensed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Bustamante) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I packaged JpGraph[1], it is an object oriented class library for
> php4. Currently, it is dual licensed under QPL 1.0 and JpGraph
> Commercial License[2]. It doesn't have any restriction for open-source
> use (you can even use QPL for commerci
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:04:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Hmm, QPLed software (which contains a obnoxious clause in this
>> direction) has made its way into Debian...
>
> Where?
ocaml is the canonical example; but there are others. I've eve
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the
> original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would
> compromise with us regarding qmail and other software he distributes
I don't recall this; do you have a
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup wrote:
>> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Do you mind, Brandon(sic), if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort
>> > of like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in m
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you mind, Brandon(sic), if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort
> of like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in main.
Huh? The only reference to advertising in openssh's copyright file is
a clause of a Regents of UoC copyright notice and that
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
>> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
>
> This is not shown in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright! Where does this come
> from?
Err, not read the G
Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Copyright (c) 1993 Cornell University, Kongji Huang
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> ^
>> documentation for rese
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can always introduce a GR.
This is fucking ridiculous; I've already explained twice what Ardo
needs to do to get his packages past us and that's simply to comply
with policy. I've already explained twice that the problems with the
equivocal (at best)
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
> "problem"? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
> of a lot of precedent indicating that using this license language is
> acceptable?
Only for perl packages AFAI
Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>
> > Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
> > versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
> > question is this: if I were to obtain permission fro
Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry - that is simply not true -
In your opinion. I wasn't aware you were a layer? In any event, this
is a spectacularly bad time to be raising concerns; this was an open
effort from the start, all developers were invited to participate. To
ignore
Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
What Florian (conveniently?) cut here is the part that said:
"For mirrors outside the United States there should be no new
legal issues not present for those already mirroring non-US (and
accordingly the rest of the mail isn't relevant to you)
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does this program need to go in non-US,
Yes.
> and if so, is it legal for me to upload it there?
If you want advice on what's legal for you, you should really talk to
a lawyer. [Having said that, plenty of other US citizens are
uploading crypto to t
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package goes in main. (Unless it has a layer-3 encoder - folks here can't
> decide if we can package those at all).
>
> As precedent, there's already a mpeg-1 layer-2 encoder in main called
> toolame.
That's audio, what about the video? I knew MPEG
Hi,
Blackdown Java 2 was recently uploaded targeted for non-free. I'd
like some second opinions on the license if for no other reason than
reading that much legalese is not my idea of fun and I'm not sure I
understood all of it and it's implications.
One interesting thing I did see was in the Su
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
> > > archives, not even non-US.
> >
> > http://www.d
[ Please don't Cc me, I read the list ]
Hi,
Can I have opinions on whether or not this license is suitable for
main (i.e. conforms to the DFSG), please ?
[In case it's not apparent, my concerns are mostly to do with special
casing of commerical distribution, the indemnification stuff and the
pat
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > least a half dozen packages in main that are
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > |This package isn't under just the GPL as the copyright file says, but
> > > > |the GPL plus some very important exceptions.
> > > > |
> > > > |--
> > > > |James
> > > >
> > > > I wish a statement from James why the extra permissions make the packa
Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >From the copyright:
> >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> >This makes this software non-free.
Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >From the copyright:
> >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> >This makes this software non-free
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a very large number of people place software under the GPL
> because they believe it's the standard license for Free Software and
> that they are told the other licenses are "bad" (and in some cases I
> would agree) and that the GPL is good. I a
[ Sorry for the delay in replying ]
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 5. The data used[2] or produced by the Package are your property and you can
> do
>whatever you want with it, provided that you do not combine them with the
>software to do another distribution. [1]
This c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> James Troup writes:
> > Oh, good, someone chuck vim in non-free, if it's license hasn't
> > changed then.
>
> I know nothing about the license on 'vim', or on most Debian's other 2000+
> packages, except that someone at
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously James Troup wrote:
> > Oh, good, someone chuck vim in non-free, if it's license hasn't
> > changed then.
>
> Hey, hold on! It so happend I'm currently discussing the vim license
> with its auth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> |ii - making an honest attempt at communicating your
> | modifications to [us], e.g., by sending them by
> | email [...] You may distribute your modified
> | version even if you have not got a response yet,
> | or even if you have bee
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:27:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
> >
> > Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
>
> ... Linked to lesstif ...
Eh? No, it's not.
--
James
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, Debian is misinterpreting TAO's licensing terms.
I disagree.
> - David Brownwell writes:
> No new permission is necessary, unless you want to drop support for
> IIOP 1.0; that was the only real constraint that I had Sun put on
> that license. Ot
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Requiring notification for modification makes it non-free IMHO. But
> I'm not sure where this falls under the DFSG.
I agree - unfortunately, it isn't obvious that it fails the DFSG, so
we have software in main which does this (e.g. vim).
--
James
35 matches
Mail list logo