then
distribute this binary as the source.
An additional question to consider (in addition to "preferred by
whom") might be "preferred for what reason". Quite many people might
prefer to modify the actual binary if it allows them to distribute the
binary as the source.
--
Markus
m this software
: without specific prior written permission.
Is there a good reason why this isn't considered an additional restriction?
[1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
--
Markus Laire
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD
--
To UNSUBSC
[2] was that IMHO it's not "a polite excuse" but "a
blatant attempt to knowingly violate the copyright law without
actually admitting the violation".)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00090.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00102.html
--
Markus Laire
ompiled files?
The correct way to fix this is for CC to require source code, not
prohibit compiled code.
I don't understand this. How CC probihits compiled code?
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ense which would give the
recipient more rights. (And custom licenses are generally frowned
upon.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-self
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Public_domain
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
over is a
work
intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users
be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the
same network session; or
...
[1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html
--
Markus Laire
Disclaimer: IANAL
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/16/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just reported a bug for this. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes
and it'll eventually show up in bugs.debian.org
It's bug #387783
At http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=387783
--
Markus Laire
--
To
On 9/15/06, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/14/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it's possible that I should report a "serious"[1] bug for this,
> but I wanted to ask about this from debian-legal first, to know if
>
On 9/14/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
* Markus Laire [Thu, Sep 14 2006, 03:37:11PM]:
> I mentioned this problem over a week ago[5] at debburn-devel but
> didn't get any response.
Because the hard problems that you pointed out have been fixed. We do
On 9/14/06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060914 15:55]:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> > was recently forked
006-September/05.html
[6]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debburn-devel/2006-September/48.html
[7]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debburn-devel/2006-September/50.html
[8]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debburn-devel/2006-September/51.html
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/31/06, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Markus Laire said:
> So they've been doing this for 2 years, and have included
> non-DFSG-free cdrtools in main while doing so? They even shipped Sarge
> with this known non-DFSG-free packa
On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Markus Laire writes:
>I have somewhat similar feelings after I found out that the
>"cdrtools"-package[1] included in Debian isn't DFSG-free, but is still
>included in main.
>
>(Even worse, its license migh
lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00415.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, IANADD
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/26/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:18:00 +0300 Markus Laire wrote:
> On 8/26/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Markus Laire wrote:
[...]
> > > Because according to your interpretation I w
On 8/26/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No; the LGPL is always compatible with the GPL. [You can always
> >remove the LGPL from code licensed under it and r
eate LGPL:ed library which uses the GPL:ed library, and offers
the exact same functionality.
3. Use the created LGPL:ed library instead of the original one, to get
exact same functionality without (some) restrictions of the GPL.
So I don't think your interpretation is correct.
--
Markus Laire
ken
from some publication, but there is no mention of why it was allowed
to take them from that publication.
[1]http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/xorg-server
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ems for commercial users.
So whether this is good behaviour or not, Debian is currently doing just that.
IMO, we shouldn't put them in main, in order to reminder users.
[1] http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/ffmpeg
[2] http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html
--
Markus Laire
DISCLAIM
cluded in Debian
[1] http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html
[2] http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/ffmpeg
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, IANADD, and I'm not active with Debian, except by
reading few mailing lists.
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
20 matches
Mail list logo
