n a separate thread in
-legal. I gave my personal opinion there. Btw the license change comes from
upstream, not Debian. It's obvious Hubert has his own reasons for doing it,
but whichever they are they're off-topic here.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belon
on in which you send a patch for some program, but
don't add your name in the copyright header. Does this mean every
redistributor of the program will have to track you down and add the
missing lines?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will de
t "breaking the Spirit makes enemies"! Novell
> are seen as not playing fair,
Patent extortion is unethical, in and on itself. They do it by violating
the spirit of the GPL, and you perceive this as "unfair", but it's not the
reason that makes it unethical.
--
Robert Milla
ctly that. Looks like fair play to me.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.&q
e v3 only"
> the resulting file becomes distributable under v3 only. It still hasn't
> taken away my grant of version 2 to my code.
Alright then. Thanks for the correction.
So what we need it to keep the old license header around, whenever there
was one. I'll make sure this
license
version can be updated by recipients of the code, and that keeping the old
license blob around is not a must; is this correct? Does section 12 of LGPL
2.1 work the same way? If not, where's the difference?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to
modifying a different author's original files.
That depends on whether the original author chose license terms that would
allow this. In this case they did.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data;
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
>>> For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD,
>>> the second uses "LGPL 2.1 or later" and the third uses "GPL 3" then
>>>
[ Adding Hubert Figuiere (gnote upstream) to CC, note that he's probably not
subscribed ]
Hi Anthony,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20090408194833.ga5...@thorin>, Robert Millan
> writes
>>> and a
>>>
7;m fine with extra clarification, for the sake of
correctness, it just means a bit more work. I'll speak with the gnote
author about it.
> and a
> clear violation of Tomboy's license.
Notice license and copyright statements are two separate issues. AFAIK
LGPL doesn't explicit
gt; - until then, GNote cannot be considered
> suitable for Debian.
Sure. Btw, I'm adding debian-legal to CC, perhaps they can provide some
insight (as you know, when there are doubts about legal stuff it is
considered good practice to discuss things in that list).
Cheers
--
Robert
program as per
GPL requirements?
Thanks
--
Robert Millan
I know my rights; I want my phone call!
What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >>
> >> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way:
> >>
> >>
daemon.. err Microsoft.. like Novell has.. Will I have to suffer
> > the shadow of Microsoft patents over Silverlight when using or
> > developing Moonlight?
>
> Not as long as you get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include
> patent coverage.
See: http://linux.slash
icant when it comes to lots of
packages) who have to update the copyright file every time license changes.
Most GPL programs out there are 2-or-later, so we are always allowed to
distributed as per the latest GPL. The opposite does not apply.
[1] Even if DFSG-freeness of GPL 3 were to be disputed, t
a program is dual-licensed under
GPL-2 or "any later version", you can adhere to GPL-3 for the purpose of
compliing with Section 1 (or whatever section it is in GPL-3), without this
preventing our users from adhering to GPL-2 if they wish.
(IANAL, etc)
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is
proposed patch, incorporating these fixes.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
diff -ur debian-policy-3.7.2.2.old/policy.sgml debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml
--- debian-
think we should amend policy in this way:
>
> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer to
> the versioned GPL file in /usr/share/common-licenses.
Good idea. Should we also specify that referring to the unversioned GPL
is for programs that say "Version X
nt by extending it to any DFSG
compatible version the FSF may publish.
- Deprecate use of symlinks, since they're a source of problems (as exposed
by GPLv3, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00234.html)
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: thi
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: serious
twolame contains code (MP3 encoding algorithm) which infringes patents of
the Fraunhofer Institute. This falls in the "Software that can't be packaged"
cathegory in WNPP:
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
and I don't see any discussio
ving the offending code and leaving avidemux only with support
for patent-free codecs like theora?
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for
spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
Actualy, I'm not sure if indirect linking of GPL with "original BSD" license is
a violation as well.
Summary for debian-legal:
- zabbix (GPL) links with libsnmp (revised BSD)
- libsnmp links with libssl (original BSD)
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:32:04AM +0200, Robert Millan [
Hi!
gngb is in main, gnuboy is in contrib. They both are GPLed, so the obvious
question is, what's the difference?
If requiring non-free ROMs to run justifies putting it in contrib, then I think
gngb should be moved. Otherwise it's gnuboy that should be moved.
--
Robert Milla
don't think we're serving the interests of our users or the free
software community first in our priorities.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
indicate otherwise:
> [...] alternatively, you could remove the copyright notice *from the
> boot messages* (since it is not the copyright notice which is governing
> the work).
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:16:14AM -0500, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Package: kfreebsd-5
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > The following lines are printed by kFreeBSD when boot starts:
> >
> > "Copyrigh
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:16:08PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:17PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Robert Millan asks:
> > > Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> > > and "modules&quo
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:52:17PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Robert Millan asks:
> > Did you reach a consensus in how to deal with the lack of license in "m4"
> > and "modules" directories?
>
> Under modules/ I put a copyright notice.
great!
>
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:57:45PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added
> the GPL copyright notice to [lbrkprop.h] now.
Thanks! With this and the other commits Paul did, most of my concerns are
solved (all of those that affected the
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:05:51AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> dirfd.h is just dirent boilerplate code plus two trivial #if blocks.
> Not worth worrying about, imho. The guts are in dirfd.m4.
> getpagesize.h was factored out of GPL'd code.
> I've added a copyright notice to each of those.
Loo
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > lib/atanl.c
> > lib/logl.c
>
> If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c
> and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:31:56PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1926 +0200]:
> > We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social
> > Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:13:20PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1908 +0200]:
> > How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved
> > to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider remo
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:48:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Carlo,
>
> I am sorry to inform you that I have decided to move libcwd to
> Debian's non-free archive, where it will enjoy less support. The
> debian-legal team has deemed the QPL to be not DFSG-free, and even
> though I completely
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:22:01PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-22 14:58:24 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[ putting debian-legal on CC ]
>
> For what end?
Because gnulib is ITPed (#272867), we need to sort out possible legal problems
before
[ putting debian-legal on CC ]
Hi!
I'm trying to prepare a Debian package of gnulib, but there seems to be some
legal problems we should sort out first.
According to the COPYING file, we can't assume GPL for any of the files in
the source tree. This is a problem for files that are not explicit
comments to that effect
> attached to the bug report.
I guess this goes for me, too. Please excuse me, I wasn't aware of the real
situation. It's pretty understandable that SPI defends Debian's interests,
even if such interests are wrong.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu&
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:27:08PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:12:15AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:54:06AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree. I just thought that Debian stuff would be DFS
art nuking the non-free logo here and there, this
will teach the SPI a lesson.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\
(kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution))
velopers.
> It's somewhat amusing that debian-legal routinely convinces people
> to change to DFSG-free licenses, but can't seem to affect its own
> organization.
The real question is why a project that is dedicated to free software did
release a non-free logo in the first pl
icense doesn't explicitly allow something, it means
it's not allowed.
I'm adding CC to debian-legal. Can you people send your advice?
Thanks.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\
(kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution))
o whom the
> * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
(I recall hearing something like this from Branden on IRC, but anyway)
Doesn't explicitly grant permission to distribute modified software, so it
fails to comply with DFSG #3.
--
Robert Millan
(Debr
s are
> included) Regardless of the need or otherwise of naming the files in the
> distribution as .rom, your statement is just false.
Ah sorry, my oversight. Then I guess renaming in postinst would be compliant
with the license.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Info
7;usage' must be
done as *.rom. However, then we wouldn't be violating upstream license since
it is up to the user to illegaly use the package.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\
(kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution))
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 04:13:22PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> close 244297
> thanks
>
> No, I said
>
> "/* Some parts substantially derived from an ancestor of: */"
> and then reproduced the gnu copyright message, which clearly applies to the
> whole work.
atent holder is actively
enforcing the patent against us. Note that we are already using MPEG4 code in
debian (e.g. xine package).
Unless someone objects, I'll upload after a few days.
(please put me on CC, not subscribed)
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the d
n a very questionable state, and
should not be packaged for Debian unless the situation is clarified. If you
do agree with this, I'll add it to the WNPP list of unpackageable software.
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Monday December 29 2003 05:09, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I think there should be no problem, specialy since pvpgn hasn't recieved
> > any notice from Blizzard, and they're hosted in Germany where t
should it be
uploaded to non-us?
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and
> neither in posession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and
> hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
>
> Ainulindalë, J. R. R. Tolkien, /The Silmarillion/.
Hey, you just ripped my signature!
d then it can't be removed. It all gets very confusing if we apply the same
reasoning as for GFDL's Invariant sections. What do you people think?
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor
th several times with no result. As Sam Hocevar
pointed, we're stuck on it anyway and a good direction to take is hiring
a lawyer to analize the situation.
Btw, don't confuse decss with libdvdcss. DeCSS is a program for DVD-decoding
(somewhat) like Drip.
--
Robert Millan
"[..]
I'll upload Drip to main when its independant of libdvdcss (through
libdvdread), and other technical issues are solved.
As for libdvdcss, see the other thread.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 07:02:16AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> Robert Millan said:
> > This is what the DMCA reads:
&
[ this thread comes from libdvdcss ITP #154281 ]
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:01:46PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:31:08AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003, R
This seems like a big can of worms. I think i'll just fix the
bogus direct dependency on libdvdcss for Drip and bring Drip
into Debian for now..
thanks all for your help.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:01:21PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 01:49:48AM +, Rober
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:14:53PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 01:02:36AM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Whatever. The fact is that when we put Drip, libdvdread and libdvdcss
> > together we obtain what what the DMCA calls a "circumvention devi
e for
copyright protection technology". This may happen in non-us, but must not
happen in main.
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, an
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 10:19:53AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > It is important to note that libdvdcss is _NOT_ part of Drip. There are
> > unofficial libdvdcss packages around, and I added them to Build-Conflicts
> &g
it could make the
user break law without even knowing it.
My approach is that users who explicitly desire to have a CSS-enabled Drip
can obtain it (since it's perfectly legal if you don't live in the USA) but
no person gets it without knowing what person is doing and thus accepting
respons
is legal to do that in your state, you can do that (under your
entire responsability) by following these instructions:
[...blah blah...]
<-------README.Debian end
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and
n't see that; I thought the only copyright violation was the old
> header
> from Mozilla which was replaced.
good luck. Hope that Oliver brings a solution soon..
> P.S. Is Oliver using my patches?
I think so, I sent them a while ago and he accepted them
--
Robert Millan
"
cement and will
release a fixed version in a few weeks.
please could you invistigate on this? it could be that libflash needs to
be removed from debian until the issue is solved.
I'm CCing debian-legal
cheers,
--
Robert Millan
"5 years from now everyone will be running
free GNU on
n Johanssen for violating the DMCA,
maybe law prevailance doesn't matter.
Cheers,
--
--------
Robert Millan Debian/GNU user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
--------
Robert Millan Debian GNU/Hurd user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
GPG ID C8D6942C
237F 8688 C2E5 BC64 E152 97B4 FB28 D41B C8D6 942C
--
64 matches
Mail list logo
