Re: Sun has an ombudsman

Lewis Jardine catbox.co.uk> writes: > > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I would like to > > encourage people to email him whenever they spot things like the > > "nuclear clause" in packages from Sun which prevent them going into > > main. > > I tho

Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]

Tom Marble Sun.COM> writes: > Until very, very recently this hasn't even been possible as > we are fully aware that NetBeans has had various "non-free" > dependencies (which would have blocked it's inclusion in "main"). > Thus the primary rationale for liberating javac and JavaHelp > as part of th

Sun has an ombudsman

Hi, I saw the swift reaction on bug #276302: [Sun License for JavaCC] which has been an issue for years (upstream claims it is free software under a modern bsd license, but some files had additional restriction). Getting a real answer, an acknowledgment that this is a problem with regard to the DF

GNU Classpath based execution environments (Was: Eclipse 3.0)

Hi, On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:21 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API > > as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation > > of said interface. > > Great -- which implementation doe

GNU Classpath based execution environments (Was: Eclipse 3.0)

Hi, On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:21 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API > > as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation > > of said interface. > > Great -- which implementation doe

GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible (Was: Eclipse 3.0 Running on Kaffe)

Hi, (CCed debian-legal, so they know where we are, what we are working on and where we might need some help in the future) On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 01:10 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > However if nobody stands up and say clearly, t

GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible (Was: Eclipse 3.0 Running on Kaffe)

Hi, (CCed debian-legal, so they know where we are, what we are working on and where we might need some help in the future) On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 01:10 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > However if nobody stands up and say clearly, t

Re: GUADEC report (java-gnome)

Hi, On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 20:57, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > [...] The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that > > can't be run with free Java implementations. > > This is good news. Well done to GNOME. Note

Re: Is SystemC license compatible with the GPL ?

Hi (gcj mailinglist CCed), On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 11:12, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > >> No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are > > >> GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL,

Re: ASL2 vs. GPL?

Hi, On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 21:14, Chris Waters wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:28:21AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > I think AF and FSF are still talking. > > I hope so! Does anyone know for sure? According to the new statement on Apache website they are in active discussion with the FSF. The

Re: The GPL and you

Hi, On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 23:45, Rick Moen wrote: > I just read through http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt , and you appear > to be correct. At least, if there's anything that conflicts with GPLv2, > I can't see it. There is: 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor

Re: GNOME Font Copyright

Hi, On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 21:02, Jeff Licquia wrote: > The big problem that glares out at me is the "cannot sell by itself" > clause. I vaguely remember that d-legal considers that to be a silly > restriction that has no effect on freeness, but I could be wrong. It is certainly not in the spirit

Re: License issue in libconcurrent-java

Hi, On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 22:16, Doug Lea wrote: > I'll see if I can get the Sun legal folks to make some kind of > clarification. Any suggestions about what in particular I should ask for? I think the minimal change would be to just ask for changing the word "non-transferable" to "transferable"

Re: License issue in libconcurrent-java

of the java.util Collection framework). Sincerely, Mark Wielaard -- No. > Should I include quotations after my reply?

Re: A few more LPPL concerns

Hi, On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:30, Mark Rafn wrote: > > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file > > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance, > > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is > > accessible by users other than

Re: draft for new Vim license

Hi, On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 11:24, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > In section 2: > > > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > The problem with this is that a user of Vim ma

Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns

Hi, On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 07:44:29AM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: > > Blackdown has been given permission by Sun to alter the terms of the > licence to allow the redistribution of Blackdown released binaries by > Blackdown mirrors and Linux distributions, not just Debian, regardless > of whatev

Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs

Hi, On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:49:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It not only has the obnoxious advertising clauses, but it also has the > > Apache style "trademark" clauses (Products derived from this so

Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs

Hi, On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:03:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > [...] In particular, the > OpenSSL license is probably not GPL compatible, due to both an explicit > "You can't use this code under the GPL"-esque clause, and two or three > obnoxious advertising clauses. It not only has the obno

Re: request

Hi, On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:08:05PM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote: > > There is a difference between a mailing-list and a news-group; > a world difference, quite literally. > > When posting to a news-group, you make a copy of a "file" into your > local news-server, which then mirrors t

Re: Libapache-mod-backhand: load balancing Apache requests.

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote: > > I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this > > package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very > > much appreciated. >

Artistic License

Hi, There is a very long thread about the Artistic License; if it is a Free Software license according to the DFSG or not. Whatever the outcome of that discussion I think that it is clear that the Artictic License is indeed a very vague license. Which seems to be why the discussion is so long. (Ev

Re: orphaning fetchmail

Hi, On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of > the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they > take it as an "embrace and extend" move by the FSF. It's rather ironic > coming

Re: RTLinux patent

Hi, On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:23:45AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > If the patent were only valid in the USA, would it still have to be > > > removed? > > No, but it would be moved to Debian non-US so only &

Re: RTLinux patent

Hi, On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the > > Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time > > capabilities. > > > > In the

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, I am adding Richard Stallman to the CC list because I am sure he knows more about the precise interaction between copyright licenses and trademark licenses and how they interact with the GPL. [Context: Discussion about the new Apache License 1.1 which doesn't contain the advertising clause an

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, I am adding Richard Stallman to the CC list because I am sure he knows more about the precise interaction between copyright licenses and trademark licenses and how they interact with the GPL. [Context: Discussion about the new Apache License 1.1 which doesn't contain the advertising clause a

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to > > change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added > > re

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to > > change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added > > re

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:25:32PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:17:24PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Is the new Apache License really GPL compatible? > > Not according to the FSF. Cf. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. O. Great p

New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:06:24PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:29:32AM -0700, Talin wrote: > > > The license that I want should have the following features: > > > > > > 1. Be compatible with the GPL. > > Then you

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:20:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > > > Here is the language I came up with: > > > > > > A special exception to the GPL listed below is that this > > > program may be linked with any lib

Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:25:32PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:17:24PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Is the new Apache License really GPL compatible? > > Not according to the FSF. Cf. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. O. Great p

New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])

Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 12:06:24PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Joseph Carter wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:29:32AM -0700, Talin wrote: > > > The license that I want should have the following features: > > > > > > 1. Be compatible with the GPL. > > Then yo

Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]

Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:20:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > > > Here is the language I came up with: > > > > > > A special exception to the GPL listed below is that this > > > program may be linked with any li

Re: When will KDE and Debian get together?

Hi, > On Sun, 28 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote: > > KDE, in source form or not, cannot be an official part of Debian until > > its license problems are resolved. Source is great, but you have to be > > ale to leagally build it, link it against the required libraires, use it, > > and distriute binaries

Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt

Hi, On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > But THIS relation (Linked Against) is not really clear from the Terms > in Par.9 - It says "distributed along" which KDE + QT2 would also > be. > > IMHO the "distributed along" term does not clear the tightness/intense > of the

Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt

Hi, On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > The paragraph says "License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software". > As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible > and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires "the whole work" > distributed under

Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt

Hi, On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:18:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > the DFSG Paragraph 9 says: > > 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software > [...] > A restriction could be that you have to publish all "parts" of the program > under the same license as the GPL says - This Discussion h

Re: KDE not in Debian?

Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 02:22:58PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: [... I try to show why it is obvious that Andreas Pour his explanation of the issues involved with distributing a combined work from source distributed under the GPL, BSD and/or QT is wrong. Andreas Pour repeats some of his assum

Re: Double Standard?

Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 11:20:56AM -0800, David Johnson wrote: > My cynicism just kicked in again :-) So I am now doing a wee bit of > research... > > Of course, I'm not currently running Debian at work, so I don't have any > means to extract licenses out of deb files [...] Everything you ev

Re: KDE not in Debian?

On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:07:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > > Jeff Licquia wrote: > > > This is all true. However, the BSD licensing terms are not being > > violated, are they? There is no clause in the BSD license that > > requires me to redistribute under the same terms; it simply gives m

Re: New draft of jcode.pl licence

On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > > ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as all > > ;# copyright notices are retained. Redistribution with modification is > > ;# allowed provided that you make your modified version distinguishable > > ;#

Re: [DOM Java bindings] Can a W3C recommandation be free?

Hi, On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > I plan to package the W3C's Java bindings for DOM > . > The recent versions of my XT package > needs it, so either I package it, or "potato" is released

Re: Fields of Endeavor (was Re: [Fwd: Intent to package: pm3])

On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > > I wasn't thinking of the fields of endeavour clause, but simply this one: > > Free Redistribution > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the softwar

Apache License & GPL

Hi, Sun has announced at JavaOne that they will donate code for a Servlet and JSP engine to the Apache Foundation. This code will then be licensed under the Apache license. This is the Jakarta project . They don't have the code yet. There is a lot of code dealing with S

Re: licence of CommAPI from Sun

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Christian Leutloff wrote: > Hi there, > > here is the licence from Sun for the CommAPI extension of the Java > language. Most of the problematic parts of this licence are > overwritten in the second part of the licence. So please, read the > whole before y