Re: tg3 firmware - was (Fw: [CASE#221365]: Closed - need firmware files)

2009-04-10 Thread Jeff Carr
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:14, Neil Williams wrote: >> * Firmware is: >> * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code, > electrical equipment or hardware tools, not text editors. As such, not > all firmware can be expected to have any source code. In this case, as > we have a decla

Re: What does "most recent GPL" mean?

2007-02-14 Thread Jeff Carr
On 02/14/07 13:07, Francesco Poli wrote: > I'm going to file a (normal severity) bug against the bootcd package to > request that the license statement is clarified. It would be a good idea to put together a standard template for both the preferred content of the debian/copyright file and a well

Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy

2007-01-31 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/30/07 11:54, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Gran wrote: Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to redistribute under the GPL. This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefere

Re: creative commons

2007-01-16 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/13/07 11:09, Francesco Poli wrote: > My MUA (sarge's Sylpheed) does not support the Mail-Followup-To: field > and hence I should set it manually for each message I send. Ya, I see now there was some patch floating around to sylpheed around '02 that maybe fixed that (sylpheed-0.6.5claws25-li

Re: creative commons

2007-01-16 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/12/07 19:43, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org BTW, I noticed this line by looking at your emails since replies to your emails work correctly. > That's not how M-F-T is supposed to work. M-F-T is for specifying an > *alternative* to the list address

Re: creative commons

2007-01-12 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/11/07 16:20, MJ Ray wrote: >> Even Richard Stallman says that aesthetic works like books and music >> don't have to be free. > > Not in the same way and he proposes different levels of freedom for > different types of books, but I think Stallman is arbitrary and > inconsistant about books a

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

2007-01-12 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 12:19, MJ Ray wrote: >> That's not how things work in my experience. You are responsible for >> everything on the CD. It has nothing to do with how you label it or if >> you advertise it as included at all. > > Maybe you are responsible for it, but how can strings encoded in a > recor

Re: creative commons

2007-01-12 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/12/07 09:27, Francesco Poli wrote: >> Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to >> contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not rule >> out it's use will always contradict the DFSG for every case. > > I think it will: it forbids selling the work

Re: creative commons

2007-01-12 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/11/07 12:27, Francesco Poli wrote: > You seem to be happy with free programs whose documentation is non-free. Well now, I'm not like that. It's not up to me if the authors choose a NC clause. It's at least allows PDF's to be sent and people that can't afford to purchase a physical book can

Re: creative commons

2007-01-12 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote: > Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the > list address, as I didn't ask you to do so. > Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists: > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct > Thanks. I got annoyed as to wh

Re: creative commons

2007-01-12 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/12/07 09:31, Francesco Poli wrote: > The issue here is not whether the NC license element is /useful/. That makes a lot of sense now. I think maybe that's why we haven't been seeing eye to eye in this thread. Whether or not the NC license element is useful was the exact issue I was trying t

Re: creative commons

2007-01-11 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/10/07 10:24, Francesco Poli wrote: > Indeed, something vaguely similar to free software, but exclusively > non-commercial, would *not* have been as successful as actual free > software; that non-commercial-only kind of software really exists and is > sometimes referred to as "semi-free softw

Re: creative commons

2007-01-11 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/11/07 06:42, Terry Hancock wrote: >> | That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :) > I agree with you that NC and ND content violates DFSG. Sorry, I had difficulty making my position clear. Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to contradi

Re: creative commons

2007-01-10 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 16:34, Francesco Poli wrote: > Drafting and actively promoting licenses that forbid commercial use > and/or modifications harms the free software movement, rather than > helping it. That hasn't always worked out to be the case in my experience. Books and documentation are a common one

Re: creative commons

2007-01-10 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 12:13, MJ Ray wrote: > I've no idea about CC's lawyers. They seemed very uncommunicative and I'd speculate that they seemed that way on the threads I saw because they probably were only interested in legal arguments and lots of the conversation was about the philosophy. So they proba

Re: Legal status of tkchooser (microsoft logo used)

2007-01-09 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 09:43, Joe Smith wrote: > I did express concerns that the image may still have copyright > problems if it was taken directly from Windows, rather than being > recreated. OK, I understand your concern now. In my experience & understanding, copyright law trumps either case. > Even if

Re: creative commons

2007-01-09 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote: > "CC in any form"?!? > Even CC licenses with ND and/or NC elements?!? > > I really doubt the DFSG were written with the intentions of forbidding > modifications (see DFSG#3) or commercial use (see DFSG#6). > Are we talking of the *same* DFSG? Yes I think

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

2007-01-09 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/18/06 09:02, MJ Ray wrote: > If the label is not on the outside of the CD or otherwise used in the > course of trade by the distributor, how is the trademark infringed by > the distributor? That's not how things work in my experience. You are responsible for everything on the CD. It has not

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

2007-01-09 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/21/06 08:18, Gervase Markham wrote: > I admit this is a bit stretched, but I find it hard to understand how we > come to a position where Debian can label anything it likes with any > trademarks it likes in its distribution, as long as it doesn't write the > trademarks on the outside of the

Re: creative commons

2007-01-09 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/09/07 02:10, MJ Ray wrote: > Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and >> intentions that the DFSG was written. [...] > > Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating again

Re: creative commons

2007-01-08 Thread Jeff Carr
On 01/05/07 16:43, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:48:11 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > >> On 1/6/07, Luis Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> I want some feedback on the compatibility of creative commons 2.5 >>> and Debian. >>> >>> I read that v 2.0 is not compatible

Re: Legal status of tkchooser (microsoft logo used)

2007-01-08 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/21/06 13:53, Joe Smith wrote: >> That's probably considered fair use for the purpose of which it was >> intended. I'd guess Microsoft is unlikely to complain. In any case, >> you should ask the tkchooser authors about it and they can contact >> Microsoft if they think it is necessary. > > T

Re: IEEE copyrighted files in vhdl tools

2006-12-21 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/19/06 07:50, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote: > Hi, > I've filled an ITP[1] on a freehdl. The upstream authors licensed it as > GPL, but I've found in the source tarball one vhdl header file How did you determine the upstream authors didn't have permission? > ( ieee/numeric_bit.vhdl), with

Re: Open Font License 1.1review2 - comments?

2006-12-21 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/11/06 14:02, Nick Phillips wrote: > On 12/12/2006, at 10:50 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > >> >> The clarification from MJ Ray regarding DFSG#4 made me think that each >> distinct copyright holder had a veto power on _one_ Font Name. >> At least I hoped it was so, since if each copyright holder

Re: Python Software Foundation trademark policy

2006-12-21 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/21/06 08:18, Gervase Markham wrote: > I admit this is a bit stretched, but I find it hard to understand how we > come to a position where Debian can label anything it likes with any > trademarks it likes in its distribution, as long as it doesn't write the > trademarks on the outside of the

Re: Acknowledgment clause in GPL code?

2006-12-21 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/21/06 09:53, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > I'm curious as to the status of the following code for solving a > Rubik's cube: > > http://www.wrongway.org/work/solver.tar.gz > > The readme.txt file states > > This program is released under the GNU General Public License. > It m

Re: Legal status of tkchooser (microsoft logo used)

2006-12-21 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/21/06 11:00, Daniel van Eeden wrote: > The file /usr/lib/tkchooser/icons/winpop.pnm from the tkchooser package > uses an > microsoft windows logo. Is that legally permitted? > > Please CC or BCC me, I'm not on the list. That's probably considered fair use for the purpose of which it was in

firefox -> iceweasel package is probably not legal

2006-12-05 Thread Jeff Carr
I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't also use their trademark to switch users to a competing product. ("bait-and-switch") The same trademark issues are why there is not a package called openoffice.

Re: photo licenses

2006-11-08 Thread Jeff Carr
On 11/08/06 01:27, Maarten de Boer wrote: > I placed my own photos under CC 1.0, but I understand that this > is not acceptable? I can change them under the GPL, but would The GPL is fine for images. Just package them up with the rest of the source for your game and include a standard COPYING fil

Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?

2006-11-07 Thread Jeff Carr
On 11/07/06 02:19, Markus Laire wrote: > On 11/4/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> IMO, whenever there's any doubt about which is the preferred form >> ("preferred by whom?"), we should follow the preferences of the last >> modifier: if you actually modify a work, you've shown in pra

Re: Is the University of Edinburgh clickwrap GPL DFSG-free?

2006-11-04 Thread Jeff Carr
On 11/04/06 06:47, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 01:27:43 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > [...] >>> 1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under >>> the plain GPL in terms of what I am allowed to do? > [...]

Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?

2006-10-19 Thread Jeff Carr
On 10/17/06 15:06, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO. > > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that > you're not a lawyer. I agree. Out of curiosity, I