Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception

d a provision be invalid or become invalid”, and these provisions have no reason to become invalid (§9 and §10 are purely informational), I don’t see it a problem, though. However, regarding compatibility with other GPL components (if there are any), I wouldn’t be so sure. Cheers, -- .

Re: Unsure If Array 30 Chinese Input Method is DFSG Free or Not.

gt; license, if it is DFSG free, at least packages including array input > method could be kept in main. This new version looks fine to me. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subjec

Re: a Free Platform License?

d because of that, overall I don’t think it’s a bad idea. But you’d have to convince a lot of people to use it, because it only makes sense when applied to a killer application, and you can’t know by advance which ones will be. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `

Re: On using the name Kinect, and fetching a binary firmware

the firmware using a secure hash or equivalent technology; * the package will need to go in contrib. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe

Re: unsourced pdf in tarball; src available from ftp site;

for info on that). You can then use the upstream pristine > tarball. With dpkg-source v3 you can also include binaries in the debian/ directory. Just mention them in debian/source/include-binaries. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this wa

Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence

a requirement, they should add an option 4: the GPL. End of trouble. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists

Re: distributing a restricted branding icon OK?

Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 11:54 -0500, Gabriel Burt a écrit : > 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? No, it would not. This icon is not free, in terms of copyright - and t

Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?

Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 11:27 +, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : > > Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another > > program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example > > of where it does happen, git is largely comprised

Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case

Hi, and thanks for the effort of providing the complete information. Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 09:31 +, Andrew Ross a écrit : > The software itself is the current version of iText, which is licensed > under the AGPL with the following additional term: > > "In accordance with Section 7(b) of th

Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?

Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : > >> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, > >> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes > >> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic > >> link

Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case

ies there a rule that forces resellers to warn consumers when there are traces of nuts in their products. You can’t take the place of such a law by using your copyright license as a vessel. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are bl

Re: Parsing output = derivative work? (was: RFS: gnetworktester)

be one, but to a court, there wouldn’t be any. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: S3TC patent violation in multiple packages?

Le lundi 27 décembre 2010 à 23:22 +, Wols Lists a écrit : > But it shouldn't be too hard, in UK courts at least, to file to have it > dismissed in summary judgement. I don't know about other European > jurisdictions, but we do have case law to back up the European Patent > Treaty ban on softwar

Re: S3TC patent violation in multiple packages?

EG decoders in main. As for the compression algorithms, I can only agree with Julien: we can only care if the patent is being actively enforced and considered valid. Otherwise we might as well stop distributing anything. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If

Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.

Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 à 17:30 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > There is no question in my mind that the blue logo under debate is a copy of > > the Debian logo, followed by a color change. There are too many degrees of > > freedom (beginning of the swirl path, brush thickness, etc). > > Yo

Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.

Le lundi 29 novembre 2010 à 11:23 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 10:36 +0100, Alessandro Rubini a écrit : > > > http://imgur.com/gFKfs.jpg > > > > Thank you for making this jpeg, it's very clear. > > > > > [...] >

Re: Inappropriate use of Debian logo.

Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 10:36 +0100, Alessandro Rubini a écrit : > > http://imgur.com/gFKfs.jpg > > Thank you for making this jpeg, it's very clear. > > > [...] > > "The comapny Logo was created by photoshop and Logo software, we desgined it > > from the stretch. if you have somethins to s

Re: Problem with Squeeze Artwork

Logo with "Debian": > http://www.debian.org/logos/openlogo.svg > which, unfortunately, does *not* comply with the DFSG: > http://www.debian.org/logos/#open-use Note that this is not a regression from lenny, since moreblue-orbit has the same problem. -- .''`. Josselin

Re: CodeIgniter license

So a license that requires you to disclose your identity doesn’t actually require you to give the name on your passport. If a local law doesn’t acknowledge pseudonyms for copyright assignment, what happens to works distributed under a pseudonym? Are they automatically illegal? made public domain? -- .&

Re: is RtMidi license DFSG-free?

s a request, but it’s listed in the conditions. I think you should really ask upstream for clarification here. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” --

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

tware vendor wanted to distribute a GPL program built on proprietary libraries, he could not. The constraints for a CDDL’ed OS are the same as for a proprietary one. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-

Re: [Lame-dev] LAME license

Le jeudi 26 août 2010 à 23:27 +0200, Gabriel Bouvigne a écrit : > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/115654 > > > > Do you agree with this claim? > Without ressorting to any court, I share the opinion that every file > featuring the usual LPGLv2 header is only convered by

Re: Plugins for non-free software in orig.tar.gz

iven the triviality you will end up writing the same files with only non-algorithmic changes. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Plugins for non-free software in orig.tar.gz

aqsis, pixie, jrman). This looks much more worrisome to me. There is no license for use or redistribution here. I’m surprised the FTP masters let this slip through. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: One-line licence statement

t; "This is exactly the form, and intent, of the original XML::Writer licence: > you may "Do whatever you want with this work." No. You may not, since it only permits use. > As I am not sure, which form of language would be the best to achieve this > goal? The simplest way to

Re: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? > The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. Definitely non-free, and the author’s clarification removes any doubt. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because

Re: CMU LTI Licence

this data? Should the acknowledgment go into the package descriptions? In the documentation? On the CD itself? I’d be more confortable with shipping this in Debian if the clause was more clear; or at least, if it was asking to refer to the data only in relevant places. Cheers, -- .'&#x

Re: mass bug filling about moving toi main

ls? Do you know whether this also affects stuff like poppler-data which are in non-free because of CMap files? Please also post, per developer-reference, a dd-list of affected packages to debian-devel. Thanks, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you t

Re: Internet2 licence

hors to create a proprietary derivative while it does not allow others to do it. I agree with your reasoning and the conclusion this clearly violates DFSG #3. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- futur

Re: Internet2 licence

incorporate into the software or > other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your enhancements > or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form. The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft lic

Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source

Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: License of CORBA Interface Definition Files published by the Object Management Group

nothing creative in them. However the comments are, so maybe we have to strip the comments from those files. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signa

Re: Is "IPA Font license" DFSG-Free?

ystems make it easy to alias a font with another one so it’s fine for those who modify it. Otherwise, it’s a simple license with a strong copyleft, which should be fine for Debian. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English i

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

dd meaningless acronyms to all your emails, please do so in your signature. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models

a model, how can we prevent non-free software > to use free data such as those of Voxforge? A widely-used technique is to cleverly hide some minor bugs in the data. If a non-free model shows the same bugs, you can prove the data was used illegally. Of course this only works if you manage t

Re: Dirent.cpp - Is it DFSG-free GPLv2 only compatible

er cost of distribution. “No charge may be made” → clearly non-free -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: GPL2 vs. GPL3

Le mardi 14 avril 2009 à 18:53 +0200, dominik.smat...@gmail.com a écrit : > Dear legal gurus, > > is it possible to publish software under GPL3, if this software is > depending on some GPL2 libraries? > > Sorry, I was trying to read GPL3, but my English is not good enough to > figure this out by

Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers

Le vendredi 10 avril 2009 à 14:35 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > At least with a strict interpretation, the run-time exception suffers > from a significant issue with compilers which are not licensed under a > GPLv3-compatible license (such as the GPLv2, or the QPL), and which > are implemented

Re: Zimbra and Yahoo Public License

Le lundi 23 mars 2009 à 17:16 +0100, Cedric Fachinetti a écrit : > * 3.2 - In any copy of the Software or in any > Modification you create, You must retain and > reproduce, any and all copyright, patent, trademark, > and attribution noti

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

Le mardi 17 mars 2009 à 23:13 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > Unless there are copyrightable comments, which can be stripped out, I don't > think there's anything here that we should recognize as covered by copyright > at all. Keep the keyboard mapping we currently have in X if it's useful > (co

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

Le mardi 17 mars 2009 à 14:54 +, MJ Ray a écrit : > In general, I'd support this. Further, j...@debian's implementation > included at X.org is not subject to the other holder's copyright, so > I'd report the bogus CC-NC-ND layout claim as a bug to X.org. > > Has that happened? This thread hi

Re: The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

Le lundi 16 mars 2009 à 11:18 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : > Is there any hope of getting Leboutte to license this under CC without > the NC and ND clauses or retract his claims? I don’t think so, but maybe an open source evangelist would have better luck. > Alternatively, can someone generate

The copyright of a keyboard mapping and its implementation

Hi, there are two available layouts for French Dvorak keyboards. One of them, which is the cause of my concern, was written by Francis Leboutte, and was originally distributed as a (non-free) Windows driver. I started then to make another implementation of the same mapping, for X11. It soon turne

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > > Even the FSF considers it free. > > The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms a

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered > non-free No. Even the FSF considers it free. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from pla

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

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 would be interested to learn about them. There’s also the case of M

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 23:19 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors > > to call Debian modified versions "Alice", as long as renaming it is easy > > otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past. > > I don't think the

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 09:25 -0500, Luke Faraone a écrit : > Hi, I'm interested in packaging Alice (RFP: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500648), but it's > license has naming > restrictions similar to Mozilla. > > Would retit

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : > > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here. > > The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture. No. If you’re the copyright owner, you get to decide what is the preferred form of mo

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here. > > I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the > GPL point of view. The relevance comes from the fact that pictures can be their own

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in > > whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it > > will be

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 13:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use > > an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a > E.g. this is bullshit. More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in

Re: deluge and GeoIP database license

Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 00:33 +0100, Cristian Greco a écrit : > 1) Is this license really suitable for distribution in main now? Yes, it’s a BSD license with advertising clause. Theoretically you cannot link GPL software without exception to it; however the library is merely using it as dat

Re: Public Domain for Germans

Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 14:25 +, MJ Ray a écrit : > Also, I'm disappointed that WTFPLv2 is so long. Why do people need to > care about Sam Hocevar's name, address and permission to change it? > It seems obviously below the creative threshold for copyright... > > I'm no longer sure whethe

Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3

Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 18:28 +0100, Simon Josefsson a écrit : > 2. VERBATIM COPYING > You may not use > technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further > copying of the copies you make or distribute. I wonder how we should consider the fact they did not remove nor rephrase t

Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license

Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:59 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > First of all, a no-name-including-this-string clause may well be more > restrictive than default trademark law. A case where this is > particularly apparent is the PHP one: I am not allowed to use any name > including the string

Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license

Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature > >of the change and the names of those who changed them. > > An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable. > The second p

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes a écrit : > I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally > couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it > might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK, > to have source code in

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Le jeudi 21 août 2008 à 11:16 +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit : > Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program > (possibly modified) covered by AGPLv3 that uses some kind of network, > and you cannot convey its source code to the remote people you're > interacting with through that

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

Le jeudi 28 août 2008 à 01:22 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > Because it's just not implied, unless you manage to stretch the concepts > enough. Maybe we need to rephrase DFSG5 as “The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons, except those Marco d’Itri doesn’t care abou

Re: Bootstrapping from binary blob shipped in the source package

Le jeudi 31 juillet 2008 à 10:07 +0200, Jens Peter Secher a écrit : > What do you mean by reliability here? From a package-building > perspective, I find it to be more reliable to use the precompiled blop > because then I can make sure that the package compiles in a minimal > environment. Otherwi

Re: Zend Optimizer License

Le jeudi 10 juillet 2008 à 15:06 -0500, Richard Laager a écrit : > 7. Indemnity. Licensee will, at its own expense, defend any action > brought by a third party against Zend to the extent that such action is > based on a claim arising from or relating to: (a) Licensee's use of the > Software, (ii)

Re: codecs and totem

Le dimanche 29 juin 2008 à 01:53 -0400, Daniel Dickinson a écrit : > totem-xine > vlc > (I think mplayer) > > can play DVD's as they are in main totem-gstreamer can also, but without full menu support. Of course, you need libdvdcss to be able to read 99% of the DVDs. -- .''`. : :' : We a

Re: BSD/GPL/LGPL and OpenSSL

Le jeudi 05 juin 2008 à 18:02 +0200, Vincent Danjean a écrit : > * LGPL+ssl (LGPL with OpenSSL clause) There is no need for an OpenSSL exception for a LGPL-licensed work. > What I'm thinking with a program that links with 2 libraries: > NOT valid: progA[GPL]{libssl} > valid: progA[GPL+ssl]{l

Re: DFSG is not suitable for things other than software

Le mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 16:12 -0700, Yuhong Bao a écrit : > DFSG is not suitable for, and should not be applied to, things other than > software. I see dead horses. People beat them. They don’t know they are dead. They only see what they want to see. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. L

Re: RFR: Inc. logo in game data

Le samedi 03 mai 2008 à 17:43 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang a écrit : > He thinks that those games should to be put in non-free, unless we can > remove those logos. [2] > > It is OK for me to pack a non-free package, but it is hard to find a > sponsor for non-free packages. The license doesn’t seem to pr

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 18:58 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely > > useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on > > scripts using the language. > > Huh? Why can't someone patent langauge grammar/syntax? I s

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On sam, 2008-03-22 at 22:33 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > > Have you considered the GNU LGPL (v2.1)? > > > Yes, but I encountered strong resistance from FSF when proposing a > "lighter" (with exceptions) LGPL version. This is, again, because you are not proposing additional permissions (for w

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On ven, 2008-03-21 at 10:09 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > > This clause makes the license a copyleft one. It is free, but this is a > > huge restriction compared to the original license. And this turns the > > license into yet another copyleft license that will be incompatible with > > other o

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On mer, 2008-03-19 at 20:34 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications > and permissions. This is, well, an interesting claim. >4. *Redistribution of Work and Derivative Works*. You may reproduce > and distribute copies of the

Re: Desert island test (was: Questions about liblouis)

Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit : > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared > aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt > to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to deb

Re: License clause, not allowing use of author's name for promoting

Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008 à 23:25 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo a écrit : > Hi, > > I am concerned about the following license snippet, basically point 3 > which talk about use of authors' name. > This comes from a source included in conduit (version 0.3.6, not yet > uploaded) > 3. The name o

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

Le mercredi 16 janvier 2008 à 14:55 +, MJ Ray a écrit : > > We have allowed exactly the same conditions by using software with > > trademarked names. > > Where? The naming rights asserted above seem much broader than what a > trademark allows. Trademarks have many limitations. If we have na

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

Le lundi 14 janvier 2008 à 22:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > a. The name of Your Product (or of Your modified version of This > > Product) > > must not contain the name TrueCrypt (for example, the following names > > are > > not allowed: TrueCrypt, TrueCrypt+, TrueCrypt Profes

Re: Micropolis GPL License Notice

On dim, 2008-01-13 at 14:37 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > | ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7 > | > | No trademark or publicity rights are granted. This license does NOT give you > | any right, title or interest in the trademark SimCity or any other > Electronic > | Arts trademark. You

Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3

On sam, 2008-01-12 at 20:27 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > The plain text version of the licence may be found at > http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/License.txt > and is pasted below in its entirety. Thanks. Summary: * I think this software is fine for main if we package it the iceweas

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

Le dimanche 30 décembre 2007 à 08:55 +, Sean B. Palmer a écrit : > I'm looking for a permissive license, of the Modified BSD or MIT > variety, but I'd like for the copyright notices in each file to be > protected without having to include the whole license itself, if it's > more than a few line

Re: Bug#451799: new evince cannot display Japanese characters correctly

clone 451799 -1 retitle 451799 evince should depend on poppler-data reassign -1 wnpp retitle -1 RFP: poppler-data -- Encoding data for the poppler PDF rendering library block 451799 by -1 thanks * Package name: poppler-data Version : 0.1.1 Upstream Author : Adobe, Red Hat * URL

Re: GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit : > Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? I don't think so. > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this >software must display the following acknowledgment: >"This product includes softwa

Re: The legality of wodim

Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007 à 08:30 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit : > For all I know he does have a legitimate claim under German law that cdrkit > infringes his Urheberrecht, but cdrkit is not a German product per se. The German law doesn't give Jörg Schilling more rights than any other one, and

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

the terms of the GPL, the author's rights apply by default, so you don't have the right to use, distribute or modify the software. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Java, GPL and CDDL

Le jeudi 15 novembre 2007 à 17:04 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > >CarMetal uses colorchooser https://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is > >CDDL licensed. > > If colorchooser has been developed independently from CaRMetal, and only > CaRMetal calls colorchooser, it is indeed similar to what hap

Re: "rescuing" code from the GPL

distributed, whether in source form or compiled form. No, it must be licensed under a GPL-*compatible* license. And the BSD license is GPL-compatible. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[E

Re: The legality of wodim

Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > So make sure that "wodim" prints something like: > > "This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original > software" > > and it mets the rules. Sorry, but we are not allowed to display false statements li

Re: The legality of wodim

Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:57 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation > > of the Author's work. > > You seem to missinterpret the GPL. > If

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > A GPL "work" that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL > library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers. Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL library a

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > > > The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. > > > > No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it > > "explicitly" allows it. > > Well, _I_ did already explain why this

Re: GPL 3 and derivatives

Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 06:15 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit : > Francesco Poli wrote: > > ... and despite its length, it does not even implement an actually > > working copyleft mechanism. :-( > > Francesco, that's very surprising. Can you please elaborate, or have you > posted your opin

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > there is a problem in wodim. > > The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that > harm the reputation of the Author. There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation of

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:46 -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit : > If you want my services as an English teacher, you'll > have to ask me for a quote; otherwise, finding the errors in your logic is > your problem, not mine. Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 17:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > Is t

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of "the work": > > - You do not need to put "non-derived" code under the GPL. You are basing all of your reasoning on the assumption that a program that uses a

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in > > GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under > > the GPL. But to do so may infringe th

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims > in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between > "the work" and "the whole source". GPL licensing only applies to "the work".

RE: The legality of cdrecord

Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:07 -0800, Yuhong Bao a écrit : > That is exactly why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in > current versions of cdrtools. Now the remaining problem is about the > GPLed library that the CDDL mkisofs links to. Removing HFS support > would solve this proble

Re: The legality of cdrecord

Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license. > Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations. > Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems. And above all, don

Re: transitive GPL (exim4, OpenSSL, mySQL and others)

Hi, Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 19:27 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : > (1) > Is it ok to change exim's SSL library to OpenSSL in the current setup > without violating the GPL for some of the library currently in use As you said, libmysqlclient and exim are OK with linking with OpenSSL. The one pro

Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?

Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 01:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > > The whole license is CPL-based. > > > > Indee

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

ust me supplemented for all derived versions, that makes them "further restrictions". -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : > Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting. > > However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I > prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was > accepted by Debia

Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?

Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 12:06 -0400, Joe Smith a écrit : > >I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no > >jury for the trial? > > All this means is that should a trial arise, neither side will request a > jury to decide > the questions of Fact. If no jury is reque

  1   2   3   >