Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-15 13:01:16)
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:41:14 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09)
> [...]
> > > I don't think the exception may also apply when the license text
> > > is the *actual
Quoting Francesco Poli (2019-12-14 17:22:09)
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:01:18 +0100 Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote:
>
> > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only
> > > for our users to pick from
Quoting Baptiste BEAUPLAT (2019-12-14 15:12:38)
> On 12/14/19 2:01 PM, Baptiste BEAUPLAT wrote:
> > On 12/14/19 1:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> A rich collection of Free license fulltexts is relevant, not only
> >> for our users to pick from (even on a lonely isla
://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools
Kind regards,
- Jonas
Maintainer and current upstream author of Licensecheck
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
y_ going on in their minds - and when their mindset and ours do
not align, then surely they cannot be trusted to mean what the say - our
need for simple distribution has higher priority than their right to
grant complex licensing.
Right?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist &
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 19:12:53)
> On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
> >> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message
ing it on the first place?
Yes, I believe so.
As a concrete example, the Netatalk project has for many years released
code with plugins linking to OpenSSL, but has not added an exception.
Authors of Netatalk try to make a living out of commercial support for
their product, and I genuinely t
Quoting Paul Tagliamonte (2014-05-21 18:12:11)
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:06:38PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> I can't figure out exactly what your previous concerns were but it's
>>> good to hear that they're resolved.
>>
>> For the record,
Quoting Ian Jackson (2014-05-21 17:47:42)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by
> SFLC and FSF"):
>> Quoting Turkey Breast (2014-05-21 14:22:23)
>>> I've made a Bitcoin library, and am seeking inclusion into Debian. We
had _not_ been changed to reflect the concerns I raised
and which it seems Richard Stallman agrees with me about.
Great. Let's move on...
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-05-08 21:55:45)
> * Jonas Smedegaard , 2014-05-08, 21:37:
>> So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
>> AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others
>> only require an interface serving its sourc
organisation/person be the "Debian" in their
chain and not need to reveal their patches to their users.
What did I miss?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2013-01-16 07:27:25)
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> >
> > I'll setup a mechanism to have libav extend the copyright file for
> > each binary packages, adding to header section a reasoned effective
> >
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-01-15 20:59:35)
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > the current defined purpose of the copyright file apparently is only
> > to cover copyrights and licensing or _source_.
>
> That's not true. The purpose
Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40)
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> >> Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:
paragraph to give the license information for the package
> as a whole.
I am aware of that. But I am not convinced that *any* of the licensing
formally covered by the copyright file format 1.0 are about the
licensing of _binary_ packages. It is my understanding that they all
are about sour
fix NMU - i.e. a patch applied by someone
not closely familiar with the package: Would easily violate the license.
I therefore recommend that if npm is packaged for Debian then we take
the necessary steps from the beginning even if not strictly required, to
avoid future complications.
-
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22:12AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I believe that I quoted the _license_ part of a CMap source header,
deliberately leaving out the _copyright_ and _disclaimer_ parts, ad I
considered those irrelevant for the question at hand.
I think it&#
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:32:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:05:44 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
>Mmmmh, it seems that you didn't *fully* quote the text of the new
>license...
I bel
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:24:56PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with the
following license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, are
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:03:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:30 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
September 25 CMap files was updated in Ghostscript Subversion, with
the following license:
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
>w
nd compile something else?
Kind regards,
- Jonas
co-maintainer of Ghostscript for Debian
Please cc me personally on responses, as I am not subscribed to the
list.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again,
Thanks for the quick response!
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Currently morla (ITP bug#431824) cannot be packaged as it is GPL.
>> Sh
responses, as I am not subscribed to the list.
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
24 matches
Mail list logo
