* Matthew Johnson [2009-05-30 08:17]:
> The problem here is that either there is no copyright licence (in which
> case we can't distribute it, even in non-free), or the blanket GPLv3
> applies (which is, I think, reasonable to assume) in which case either
> we have a source form, in which case it
* Paul Wise [2009-05-30 11:46]:
> What makes you think that the .ps file is not "source code"?
It was generated with LaTeX.
> BTW, I suggest that in general Debian packages should have an active
> upstream maintainer. Do you or someone else intend to take over
> upstream development of this sof
I have filed an ITP for octave-quartenion [1], a package from the
Octave-Forge Project [2]. Its latest released tarball [3] contains a
documentation file doc/quartenion [4] in PostScript format for which no
source is available. There is also no Copyright notice in the file
itself, and there are n
* Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-10 09:43]:
> My conclusion:
>
> Non-free because it forbids redistribution for a fee. Also
> questionable because of the apparent mandatory copyright transfer.
>
> You might want to discuss with upstream whether they can re-license
> the work under the t
* Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-09 09:05]:
> Please post the complete text of the license terms (and, preferably,
> preceded by the grant of license on the work) here in this thread so
> we can discuss it in context.
Here is the README file:
Could you please check whether the license for the CSIRO library [1] is
DFSG-compatible? There has been some discussion about this in Bug#500687
and in the debian-gis mailing list [2]
[1] http://plplot.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/plplot/trunk/lib/nn/README
[2]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/piper
* Andreas Bombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-24 16:52]:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > Does anyone know whether the Unicode Copyright [1] is DFSG-compliant?
> >
> > The file /usr/share/perl/5.10.0/unicore/Blocks.txt in perl-mo
Does anyone know whether the Unicode Copyright [1] is DFSG-compliant?
The file /usr/share/perl/5.10.0/unicore/Blocks.txt in perl-modules is
released under this license, but there is no mention to it in
/usr/share/doc/perl-modules/copyright.
[1] http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html
Thanks,
--
* David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-18 10:35]:
> That being the case a GPL compatible documentation license would be a
> better solution. Can you please suggest an appropriate modification of
> the documentation license to make it GPL compatible. I see no issues
> making this change as al
David,
Sorry for the belated reply.
* David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:10]:
> There remains the same issue with the comms toolbox where a similar
> mechanism is used to build the documentation. For my code (a large part
> of this toolbox) I give permission to release the docume
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-09 10:20]:
> Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Please respect the M-F-T header when replying]
>
> Not visible on this client. Guessing. Please state wishes in body.
It was:
Mail-Followup-To: [EMA
[Please respect the M-F-T header when replying]
In the process of packaging octave-fixed [1] for Debian, we found a
licensing problem with a PDF file (fixed.pdf). This file contains the
following Copyright statement:
Copyright (C) 2004 Motorola Inc
Permission is granted to make and dist
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-31 18:52]:
> There have been GPLv3 packages in unstable since the day after the license
> was released, and there has been analysis of the license on this list that
> one of the ftpmasters participated in. Barring any adverse license
> interactions wi
* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-09 10:59]:
> (4) How would the situation be if Octave were released under the LGPL?
I investigated this issue further and discovered that R (www.r-project.org),
which is released under the GPL, faced the same problem years ago. R
opera
I am confused about the the licensing conditions of the octave-gpcl package
and I need some advise from the debian-legalers.
I am both the upstream author and the maintainer of octave-gpcl. This
package provides the Octave (www.octave.org) binding for the General Polygon
Clipper library (http://w
* Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 19:44]:
> Seems to be the standard BSD 4-clause license. Clause 4 is completely
> fine, clause 3 is annoying and imposes a burden on redistribution but
> generally considered free, AFAIK. I wasn't around before June 1999,
> but I expect Debian d
Hi,
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.
Thanks in advance,
--
Rafael
$Id: COPYING,v 1.5 2005/09/30 03:02:06
* Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-29 18:50]:
> Nowhere is it stated that registration is a mandatory part of
> getting the license.
>
> It would seem that, once one person registers and downloads the
> software, that one person may distribute the software in accordance
> with the
We are seeking advice on how to proceed about an upstream tarball
distribution issue. The Debian Octave Group is planning to package the
SUNDIALS library (http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/sundials/main.html) for
integration into Octave. This package is released under a BSD License
(http://www.llnl.gov/CA
Hi Antonello,
Thanks a lot for your standing involvement with this license issue. I am
forwarding your message to the debian-legal mailing list.
Summary for the debian-legal folks: the legousb project currently uses a
header file taken from the Lego Mindstorms SDK. This file is distributed
un
* Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001/07/22 17:42]:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 03:03:50PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > My problem here is the following: let us say that L1 is released under the
> > LGPL. Now, imagine that some non-free software links against L1.
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-07-22 08:46]:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:39:03PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > I need an advice about library license.
> >
> > If I develop a library L1 that links to another library L2 which is
> > GPL'd, co
I need an advice about library license.
If I develop a library L1 that links to another library L2 which is GPL'd,
could I release L1 under the LGPL, or am I forced to release L1 under the
GPL?
Plese, Cc: replies to me. Thanks.
--
Rafael Laboissiere, Debian developer
is in HTML format and contains some figures in the GIF
format. Should I convert them to PNG?
[PLease, Cc: to me. Thanks.]
--
Rafael Laboissiere
the last paragraph makes it non DFSG-compliant, right?
[Cc: replies to me, please, as I am not subscribed to debian-legal.]
--
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the last paragraph makes it non DFSG-compliant, right?
[Cc: replies to me, please, as I am not subscribed to debian-legal.]
--
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fallback to a
rudimentary history control mechanism, implemented without Readline.
Sorry, for all this discussion, but I prefer to clarify the issues here in
debian-legal before approaching the upstream authors.
--
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
h the Readline
library, only my modifications are related to it.
Thanks for your advise, Jens, but I think that I need more enlightenment.
--
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
t subscribed to debian-legal.
--
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am considering to package Qhull, available at
http://www.geom.umn.edu/software/qhull/, but I am wondering whether its
licence is DFSG-compliant. Here is its COPYING.txt file:
-
Qhull, Copyright (c) 1993
few months. I can be reached for
propositions/bugs at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings,
Taco Hoekwater
===========
--
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Institut de la Communication Parlee / INP Grenoble, France
http://www.icp.inpg.fr/~rafael
31 matches
Mail list logo
