On 11/09/21 at 21:47 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> :
> > (1) the wording almost requires citation
>
> I take this as you agree that it does not require citation.
[...]
> > With a wrong eye, one could even see i
On 03/09/21 at 08:04 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> >
> > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU
> > parallel
> > would allow removal, but this would make upstream sad.
> > The status quo is likely to mke o
On 06/09/21 at 20:56 +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Felix Lechner
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:50 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > >
> > > But as said earlier: This is not a license issue; the license of GNU
> > > parallel
> > > would allow removal, but this would m
Hi,
When I was the DPL, I forwarded Ian's set of questions to SFLC. I did
not receive any feedback before the end of my term, but this question
was part of the things I forwarded to Neil when he took over. I'm Ccing
leader@, maybe he can comment about the status of this.
- Lucas
signature.asc
D
Hi FTP masters,
Now that the archive is frozen, could you please take some time to
review this discussion?
Thanks,
Lucas
On 09/10/14 at 13:46 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/10/14 at 12:17 +0200, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
> > W dniu 21.08.2014 o 20:08, Lucas
Hi,
On 08/10/14 at 12:17 +0200, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
> W dniu 21.08.2014 o 20:08, Lucas Nussbaum pisze:
> > Hi,
> >
> > First, thanks a lot to Ian for working on this draft, which (I think)
> > provides a nice summary of the situation around the PHP license.
&g
Hi,
First, thanks a lot to Ian for working on this draft, which (I think)
provides a nice summary of the situation around the PHP license.
On 21/08/14 at 19:49 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Ian Jackson (2014-08-21):
> > Draft question for SFLC:
> > (there are no changes since v3 apart from fix
Hi Ian,
Thanks for bringing this up.
On 30/07/14 at 13:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> There has been an ongoing and wholly unproductive conversation on
> -legal about some difficulties with the PHP licence.
>
> Would it be possible for us to obtain some proper legal advice ?
> Do we have a relat
Hi there,
On 10/03/14 at 14:57 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> >> Having read your report, even if someone decided to package it, I
> >> wouldn't advise to include it in the archive without speaking
> >> beforehand with lawyers that could advice us on the possible risks.
> >> I'm not familiar enought
On 03/03/14 at 19:24 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This was quite predictable to happen sometime. Games are a lot about
> telling stories, and stories can come in very different flavours. As
> we are planning to maybe getting a game into Debian, that has explicit
> erotic or sexual contents
On 16/08/13 at 10:08 +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> Last time this came up, several folks suggested that these files are
> not copyrightable. I happen to agree (IANAL). Perhaps we should employ
> our SFLC lawyers to find this out with more certainty. You might want
> to contact them, the DPL can help th
(Please keep debian-ruby@ Cced)
Hi,
In the upcoming Ruby release, there will be a license change from
GPLv2||Ruby to BSD||Ruby. Since the situation is rather complex, and
involves linking with both readline and openssl, I'd like to check that
our interpretation is correct.
1. Relevant copyright
On 19/03/10 at 20:59 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We will do our best to get an exception before the release.
Erm. See http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2982 for the upstream
bug. An upstream developer replied saying:
> When you want to link openssl, you use Ruby's.
> Wh
Can we distribute a ruby application that "require" (that's the ruby
> >keyword for loading libraries) both readline and openssl?
>
> I think we can do this, too. TTBOMK ruby code is interpreted at
> runtime, isn't it? So with such an application, we again don
ns:
1/ Can we ship those files?
2/ Can we ship those files in the same binary package?
3/ Can we distribute a ruby application that "require" (that's the ruby
keyword for loading libraries) both readline and openssl?
Thanks,
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http
lt"
license for DEPs in DEP0.
The subthread on -project starts with
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/05/msg00066.html
The basic requirements are: (AFAIK)
- not copylefted, so we can include the document in another document
- suitable for documents
- require changing title/author
The current version ? The
current version or any later ? This could cause problems when
integrating CeCILLed software into GPLed apps.
What do you think of this ?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net |
| fingerprint: 075D 010B 80C3 AC68 BD4F B328 DA19 6237 023B 3F4F |
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum:
>
> > IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
> > GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
>
> It looks like a fallback close simi
w.inria.fr/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.pdf
[5] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-france/2004-07/index.html
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net |
| fingerprint: 075D 010B 80C3
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:36:33PM +, Marco Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Knoppix should be distributing the source from the same location that
> >you would get the CD, so its still compliant with the GPL.
> >
> >
> Really I couldn't find the sources of Knoppix anywhere.
ht
the time, and I think I'm not the only one :(
Has anyone written such a summary ?
Thanks
--
Lucas Nussbaum
21 matches
Mail list logo
