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 * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 12/19/06 07:50, José L. Redrejo RodrÃguez 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
> [...]
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
32 matches
Mail list logo