On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:32:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 05 septembre 2009 à 18:52 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> Well, not completely a copyleft license, IMHO.
>> It says:
>> | If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to
>> | otherwise publish or di
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:08:26PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> P.S.: Please do not reply to me and the list, as I didn't ask to be
> copied.
Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use "list-reply" instead
of "group-reply" on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
be so much si
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> GNU Free Documentation License
>> Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
>> A "Transparent" copy of the Work means a machine-readable copy,
>> represented in a format whose specification is available to the
>> general
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:16:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> "Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft
>> of the GPL v.3.
>> You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
>> there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while
>> aproviding a means to autheniticate an officia
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 10:38:14PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
>> This one time, at band camp, Moritz Lenz said:
>>> Included in EiffelStudio is the so called "Base Library", released
>>> under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for
>>> programming with eiffel
I'm adding a CC to debian-legal, the Debian ML for legal issues.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:08:30PM -0400, Chuck Hagenbuch wrote:
> Quoting Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Perhaps, I should ask this in all (core|drivers) developers listed
>> in CREDITS file (but copyright in LICENSE file
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:40:55PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
> completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html
Wow. I had ki
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 12:00:46PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I've noticed that the gnome-vfs2 source package includes some GPL
> source files. These are the sources of gnome-vfs-daemon. As I
> understand it, the daemon is not essential for the gnome-vfs
> functionality, but it is spawned wh
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 04:44:28PM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 February 2006 16:25, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> I'm currently packaging a program which uses the oui.txt file from
>> http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml
>> I know that some other programs in Debian
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
> What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
> license?
The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it,
you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent
grant. So if there is
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I am considering packaging latex-mk
> (http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/) for Debian. I am appending below
> its copyright notice. I think it is DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure
> about item 3 and 4. Comments are appreciated.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 07:40:31PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:30:02AM +0100, Samuel Mimram wrote:
>> 1. Coq upstream has agreed to put a license on the documentation
>> Of course, I don't expect it to be DFSG-free.
> Of course, we have
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:38:25AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 12/20/05, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The tarball compiler (I mean the person that put all the files
>> together in a consistent collection) can assert a "compilation
>>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:30:02AM +0100, Samuel Mimram wrote:
> 1. Coq upstream has agreed to put a license on the documentation
> (reproduced at the end of the mail). This would close #294865. Since it
> was not written by a lawyer, upstream has asked me if I could get
> comments on it. So I'd b
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:52:20AM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On 11/8/05, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
>>> According to Christian belief, the bible is the "word of God".
&
in articles, including some you can find online like
> http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html
> Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom..., by J.A.L. Sterling.
This one doesn't contain the string "ortho" and "indepen" only at one
place that do
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 05:43:33PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> Does the crown copyright on the KJV affect other Commonwealth
> countries e.g. Australia?
I don't know. If it hasn't been abrogated by the Australian
legislative body between independence and present, it does. I suppose
that Aust
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lionel Elie Mamane:
>> Please investigate this before uploading to Debian.
> Or alternatively, depend on the bible-kjv-text package, which already
> is in main.
I'd rather we had a good investigation on
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> This makes the KJV of the bible non-free in GB and probably even
>> illegal to distribute at all in GB, unless the Crown gives a blanket
>> l
(
Please mail followups to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
)
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Quoting Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 08:51:26PM -
See http://lwn.net/Articles/2376/ .
According to LWN (and other websites which have taken LWN as a
source), there may be a patent-time bomb affecting SELinux: Secure
Computing Corporation, who wrote a significant part of SELinux, holds
patents on it, but doesn't give a clear-cut license, only a
re
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:12:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are some murmurings on the Web (e.g.,
>> http://www.spatula.net/software/sex/ ,
>> http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?sex-1.0 ) from people who believe that
>> it
>> is BSD-licensed, b
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I think it's possible that the short strings in this program are
> uncopyrightable since they're so short, and since there is no
> copyright for databases the collection as a group isn't
> copyrightable either.
Many countries have
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> The application of the
>>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
>>>of Goods is expressly excluded.
>> That's my favourite bit of la
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> The more operative question is if we found the specification from
> the patent file, copied it, and then benefited. As I doubt very
> much any Free Software developer has been grepping through the US
> Patent repository for ideas, th
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote:
> > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the
> > move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and
>
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote:
> If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the
> move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and
> pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent,
> which I believe expired in Se
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Nicolas Sabouret wrote:
> Josh Triplett proposed me a patch to move javacc from contrib to
> main (see bug #225484).
> The .java source files are all provided in the package's source
> (they can be compiled using kaffe) but the fact is they were not
> com
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:06:10PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference
> implementations in the SRFI's.
I have done some more digging around the issue. Several scheme
implementations in Debian main contain code lifte
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:33PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this
>> copyright notice:
>> Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference
>> implemen
Hi,
(This is the next episode of the "let's free scsh" saga.)
I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference
implementations in the SRFI's. An SRFI, Scheme Request For
Implementation, is the process by which the Scheme community agrees on
standard libraries and features for various sche
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
>> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of
>> the wording.
> All I fou
(I'm the new maintainer of the Debian package of scsh)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:07:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
>> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
>> make,
>> ;;;
34 matches
Mail list logo
