On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 00:59, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 3:44:22 PM MST Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>
> > Nope. It is enough that the script that packages the software for
> > Debian removes some files. That script can be shared in the project
&
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 23:28, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 1:54:54 PM MST Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > > Cloud you please clarify the licensing status of the icons (which is
> > > separate
> > > from any trademark issues)?
> >
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 22:24, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 6:39:51 AM MST Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > https://github.com/robang74/cloudflare-warp-gui-linux?tab=readme-ov
> > file#license-terms
> >
> > At the end of the README.md
About dealing with logo and trademarks (example)
this projects moved from an uncertain "public domain" to 3-clause BSD
license, then the Python code turned to be re-licensed under GPL v2.
First of all, I did NOT have had to "evangelize" the original author
in order to move toward an uncertain lice
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 18:55, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>
> (something that the Free Software Foundation recommends as a best
> practice, although it has become uncommon in recent years).
>
Guess why (no need to answer, it is a rhetorical question)
> Trademark law (which varies by country) basically
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:45, wrote:
>
> Dear Roberto,
> it seems to me you try to distract the discussion somewhere else instead
> of focusing on my situation.
>
> I appreciate your efforts to help but I don't see how your comments can
> help me. It seems to me yo
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:31, wrote:
>
> Am 27.08.2024 12:55 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta:
> > As long as the SVG is a separate file loaded at running time
>
> That is not what I had in mind.
> The conversation from SVG into png/ico would be done manually on one
> machine
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 12:52, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58:02 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not
> > change the nature of the work, as free software.
>
> This point of view ma
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 12:21, wrote:
>
> Am 27.08.2024 12:07 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta:
> > As long as it is a separate file. Instead, it is converted into a
> > bitmap data structure and embedded into the code, that is a derivative
> > work and can make a differen
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
> A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not
> change the nature of the work, as free software.
As long as it is a separate file. Instead, it is converted into a
bitmap data structure and embedded into th
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:34, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:50:57 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:45, wrote:
> > > We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. It
> > > might come to th
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:20, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Trying to achieve this with copyright alone will be awkward, because
> copyright is the wrong tool for this. Instead, you may want to consider
> registering a trademark for your logo. This would give you control
> over its use, while at the s
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:45, wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am an upstream maintainer of a GPL-v2-or-later project.
>
> We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. It
> might come to the case that the logo file (e.g. logo.svg, logo.png,
> logo.ico) won't be licensed with an OSI
>From my personal experience of 15+ years contacting with authors of thousands
of "free" sound fonts: they are usually composed of sounds taken from random
places, and nobody really knows who made them or what their license are. Many
of them take samples from other "free" sound fonts, and chain get
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 08:36, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
>
> They clearly state that they decompiled binaries from Windows XP. This
> means it is a /fork/ and *not* a /clone/.
>
> Since I have not heard that Microsoft has put a permissive license on
> those binaries, I would expect that the restrict
Il giorno lun 3 ott 2022 alle ore 21:50 Simon McVittie ha
scritto:
>
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 at 21:12:50 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > Are you referring to the special permission given by e-mail by Donald
Randall
> > in 2003?
>
> I think you're misreading the c
Il giorno lun 3 ott 2022 alle ore 20:42 Simon McVittie ha
scritto:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 at 19:52:23 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > reading this link here below, it seems that compilation and repackaging
> the
> > content is prohibited by their license. What'
Hi all,
reading this link here below, it seems that compilation and repackaging
the content is prohibited by their license. What's your opinion on this?
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/10082/geforce-nvidia-driver-license-for-commerical-use
In fact, up today (515.76) the .run arch
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:15:34PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> The RIAA seems to be targeting the most vulnerable and leat likely to
> defend themselves, otherweise they would be targeting those who upload
> content violating copyright laws instead on free software maintainers.
>
> (Also, there
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:13:30PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I asked the FSF to publish a reasoned analysis on this.
> I did so back in 2015, but nothing has been disclosed yet (as far as I
> know). :-(
>
> I am personally *not* convinced that CC-by v4.0 is GPL-compatible.
I think that bei
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0
> is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the
> CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses
> (non-free, in my own pe
I want to thank you for your research and bringing up this issue. From
now I will start looking for those snippets in the software projects
that I'm participating, as I find them worrysome in some particular
cases, indeed.
There was a similar case with LinuxSampler a few years ago, restricting
*use* of the program in commercial applications. It was removed from
Debian and it was concluded that its license is inconsistent, nobody can
actually comply with it, because the GPL and the added restriction
contradict each ot
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:18:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Many authors provide conflicting license statements. It's not
> unusual. In the extreme case, it makes the software undistributable
> and unsuitable for Debian.
I know, conflicting statements are a serious problem. But that's a
di
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less
> clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used
> to gain permission to combine the work with an AGPL work, especially
> if this is done in an “open
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 02:22:08PM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> 3. People took the code of (2), and adapted that code - extensively and
>explicitly - to make use of and rely upon the facilities of the code
>of (1); facilities which were missing in the code of (2).
>
> The people involved in
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 02:08:38PM +0100, David Lamparter wrote:
> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their
> wishes for the code to remain under a permissive license. While we
> could obviously just slap GPL on top, we have decided to try and honour
> the original autho
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:16:49AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> As far as I know, there is no extension agreement with the US. So, JPL as
> the database maker cannot protect the database by article 7.
>
> Also, the protection in article 7 expires after 15 years (article
> 10). The databases DE20
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:03:56AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> The directive is about database protection, not (only) about
> copyright. It mainly shows *two* independent possibilities how database
> are protectable:
>
> 1. Copyright protection: By accounting the creativity to produce the
> data
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 01:47:51PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Your other argument (with article 7) has nothing do do with copyright:
> even when this article applies to a database, it is still not
> (necessarily) copyright protected. Article 7 just claims that the maker
> of a database *may* pro
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:51:55PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> I read that article 7 that you cited as: the maker of a database has the
> right to protect it -- which however needs him to be active (which is
> not the case for the JPL).
Okay, feel free to include databases of facts in Debian if
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 02:03:44PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Sure; law is always open to be interpreted by the court. This is
> generally true and not specific to this case.
Yes but, what I want to say is that, in this particular case, I don't
think it's safe to assume that a collection of fac
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:41:37PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> That is generally not true for scientific databases: When the entries
> are selected by objective criteria (which is the common case for such
> databases), the database is not copyrightable.
That's open to the interpretation of the j
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:14:32AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Then (and may be more important): These files are not copyrightable ad
> all, since they are natural data; they describe *facts*. As one can't
> copyright the distance to the moon, one can't copyright the details of
> earth rotation.
recibir nuestro temario responda con la clave Control y sus datos:
Nombre:
Empresa:
Teléfono:
Lic. Roberto Quijano, Ejecutivo de Comercial ¡Será un placer atenderle!
Comuníquese al: 01.800.212.0746
Este mensaje le ha sido enviado como usuario o bien un usuario le refirió para
recibirlo. Si no
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I'm already in contact with old/original maintainers of igmpproxy hosted
> on sourceforge who maintained it until release of version 0.1.
>
> Those maintainers are not interested in maintaining igmpproxy anymore
> and they agreed that
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:53:53PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pali Rohár writes ("Re: is igmpproxy dfsg compliant?"):
> > On Thursday 24 November 2016 19:29:21 Roberto wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > An
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Yes, but mrouted was release/relicensed under less restrictive BSD
> license too.
>
> As wrote in one of first emails, here is link to text of new mrouted
> license:
>
> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/mrouted/L
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 12:46:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2016 20:07:43 you wrote:
> > > I do not know, but mrouted was relicensed to BSD in 2003 and
> > > igmpproxy started in 2005 (according to year in source files). And
> > > because BSD is compatible with GPL, you ca
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:29:21PM +0100, Roberto wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that whole
> > igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other parts, based
> &g
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I'm not saying that it invalidates. Just that I understood that whole
> igmpproxy can be redistributed under GPLv2+ and some other parts, based
> on mrouted had original license Stanford.txt... and those and only those
> parts (withou
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 16:17:21 Roberto wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > The COPYING file that you linked says "Original license can be found
> > in the Stanford.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
[...]
> Note that smcroute 0.92 was accepted into Debian [4].
>
> Due to above GPL facts in igmpproxy files I think that everybody though
> igmpproxy is licensed and distributed under GPL. If it was legal and I
> correct I do not know...
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Because igmpproxy is based on mrouted originally licensed under Stanford
> and later relicensed under BSD, I would consider it DFSG compliant...
For what is worth, my point of view follows:
In general, when a program is relicensed, the
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi,
> rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false
> statements included in the upstream author's answer, I will just
> recommend you to reply him something similar to the following:
That's an excellent advic
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:56:22AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have been
> //altered in the code, the modified code must be made accessible to the
> //original author(s).
Fails the Desert Island Test:
https://wiki.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 05:45:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This mailing list is purely advisory (if that, even), and has no
> formal decisionmaking status. The actual decisions are made and
> implemented by the ftpmasters.
Some advisory is valuable for me just before I choose to include such
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:50:55PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> if the original author of the software really meant "do with it whatever you
> like - really, everything" when they wrote "Use as you wish", then I'm sure
> they will give you a positive reply when you ask them whether it would be
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:55:33PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> So I think it is too risky to accept such a license if there is no
> explicit permission to all the freedoms needed for DFSG works.
Thank you for your answers. It seems there are different views on this
so it's probably better to avoid
I've encountered two simple notices, I wonder if they are acceptable for
DFSG under your opinion.
Is "Use as you wish" an acceptable license?
And, a web page that says some of its content "may be downloaded and
used for any projects, without restrictions".
There is no explicit mention of redistr
it might fall under "integrity of the author's source code."
But I am not so sure.
Regards,
-Roberto
-8<--Complete license text follows-->8-
The QuickFIX Software License, Version 1.0
Copyright (c) 2001-2010 quickfixengine.org All rights
res
that we have permission to
distribute derived works of geotrans
because the authors say so in a mail sent to me (it is not clear in
the terms of use). I asked them to
rewrite the terms of use but they released a new version without doing it.
I you agree I will upload the package to main soon.
--
odified
> the geotrans icon so it has a transparent background.
>
> All of that changes I understand they are not derivative works, so the name of
> "geotrans" can be used in the Debian distribution of geotrans. Do you agree?
What should I do? What do you think?
Regards,
--
R
he sources. Does the
footer statement on documentation pages conflict with that license. My
initial inclination is that it does not. Any other opinions?
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [I'm Cc:ing Roberto, who asked to be Cc:ed, but probably didn't see
> Joe's reply]
>
Thanks Francesco.
> >
> > This is the type of messed up license obtained when a lawyer never looks
> >
[ Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to -legal ]
I was recently asked to sponsor an upload of a package that carries the
below license. Is this license acceptable for main?
Regards,
-Roberto
-8<---
ing with their product.
I seem to recall that the people who took over eaccelerator had it in
mind to do a complete rewrite of the eccalerator code to break any link
with turck-mmcache, allowing them to relicense eaccelerator. If that
rewrite is complete, then the software may be dis
e policy may not mesh well
with the stable release update policy.
What about a "downloader" that lives in contrib and just polls the Intel
site (or whatever, it can be cron-based or only happen when the admin
executes it) and downloads the whole thing, including any updates?
Regards,
warred off long-shot litigation.
>
OK. Makes perfect sense to me.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the right word?) by the client. The attorney can only invoke it if the
information he is being asked to reveal somehow reveals some protected
information of the client. I would think that since SPI is the client,
they can unilaterally decide to make the information public.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
e 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
>
> On Debian systems, the full text of the GNU General Public License
> may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.
>
That won't work as there is no SSL excpetion for the GPL. You can check
the copyright file for the httperf to see how I h
o often read emails using a web
> interface.
> Thank you for reading, and forgive me for the OT.
>
Because it waste's space? That's what server-side filtering is for. If
you read mail in an 80 character wide terminal, then you will know that
many subject lines already get
of our
choosing about which we are passionate solely for the purpose of self
actualization. All knowledge is shared and there is no impediment to
its exchange. Of course, as we live in the real world and are
predominantly driven by money as a society, we really can't do as they
do in ST:TNG.
Regards
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:08:19PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/08/07 18:43, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:02:02PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> >> That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
> >> It seems
packaged officially for Debian.
>
Some reason why you think it is illegal and *where* you think it is
illegal would be important and probably also generate a more fruitful
discussion than a simple claim of it's illegal with nothing else.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://pe
hich is GPL but also links to OpenSSL.
It has an exception. IIRC, the same sort of situation applies to
Python.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
lication,
> but QuickForm is released under the PHP license, which is incompatible
> :/
>
If you are the author of said application, you could release under the
MIT or BSD-type license.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
ct.
> [And if for some reason it was readable into my initial response, that
> was definetly not the intention.]
>
OK. I'll drop it then.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
> > legal liability.
>
> Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not
. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> > you're not a lawyer.
>
> So, do you have anything to say about what Nathanael said? How does
> his not being a lawyer make his statement false?
>
I don't think the point was that the statement is false, rather that it
i
istributing
> sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing
> otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in peril.
>
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://p
,
Find out how to make 1.5 - 3.5k a day from your home.
800.671.9007
Ring me at my number if you can return calls.
Thanks,
Roberto Kennedy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bian Policy was
> that source packages must be DFSG-free too, but I can't find a precise
> quotation in the Debian Policy Manual and point to it.
>
IIRC, the rule is that sources and binaries must be DFSG free.
Otherwise, source CDs would fall under different rules than binary CDs.
Rega
anglais.
>
I'm no legal expert, but I seem to recall that these type of venue
selection clauses make the licenses non-free.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
f any dispute. I now cut the ribbon
> opening this to the free-for-all of opinions...
>
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
same thing. One is a product (the code), the other is a
service (the access to it). This is supposed to be specifically
addressed by GPL 3.
> Thank you for your answers.
>
> PS:I know it is not polite, but can you please CC: me? I did not
> subscribe the list.
>
Regards,
On 9/5/06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Markus Laire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060830 15:01]:
> This problem was mentioned in this list on _2004_ but cdrtools still
> hasn't been removed from Debian (see [2]). IMHO "hypocrisy" is perfect
> word to describe such behaviour.
"This list" is
Well, I've been reading the responses and I'm sorry for starting all
of this. I don't like this kind of discussions, they deeply depress
me, but it just happens that lately I'm getting involved frequently on
many of them. I want to say some things.
I hereby say that, in my subjective point of vie
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we
should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream
says they are. How is that reasonable?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is still
On 8/30/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
"When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary,
we believe A".
Your objection, in essence seems to be
"We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
is true."
Well... more exactly, I try
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
choosing Debian, because
OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the bug.
I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care.
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be in
the public domain
I will start to fill bugs for packages containing data (sound, music,
images, textures, icons...) when its origin is not specified (see
below). Many of this bugs will be RC, because of legal issues; that is
the reason for asking first on this list.
I won't make an extensive search, but I will fil
nts are ignored (for a
completely different reason).
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
le-kjv-text is not SWORD-compatible. I looked :)
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
pgpdkGKrMLokV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> (
> Please mail followups to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> )
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
&g
[Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 08:51:12PM -0700, Martin Arlitt wrote:
> Roberto
>
> all of the copyright holders have agreed to the exception.
>
> as for the rewording of the exception, I will have to check with the
> people who provided me with th
[Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> > Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
>
> Assuming that
>
> * httperf is currently released un
Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
-Roberto
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Arlitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Martin Arlitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: forwarded message from Robert
as the last
paragraph of the license, which is a jurisdiction clause specifying
Cuyahoga County, Ohia as the venue.
Would this software be able to go into main or contrib (not sure which
yet, since it is Java and I don't know if it build with free Java
tools)?
-Roberto
[0]
. Based on what your license is trying to say,
you may want to consider the MIT/X license, BSD (w/o advertising
clause), or public domain.
IANAL, but I have seen enough discussions about license issues becuase
someone wrote their own and forgot something to think that it is usually
a Bad Idea(TM)
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Roberto!
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>>Per Branden's request, I am forwarding this to -legal.
>>FSF says that the 3-clause BSD-type license is GPL-compatible.
>
>
>>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wx4j/modules/wx4j/LICENSE.TXT
Per Branden's request, I am forwarding this to -legal.
FSF says that the 3-clause BSD-type license is GPL-compatible.
-Roberto
Original Message
Subject: [gnu.org #243939] Question about 3-clause BSD and GPL compatibility
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:56:15 -0400
From: Dave T
Quoting "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
"You must ensure that
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sanchez:
>
>
>>I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
>>already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
>>Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
>>licenses (as I u
not
subcribed to -legal.
-Roberto
[0] http://pacakges.debian.org/regexplorer
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/01/msg00203.html
[3]
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/regexplorer/regexplorer/QPL.h
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> not. Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ?
>
>From 11-2004:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>>Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
>>>the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
>>>unsuitable for any serious deployment.
>
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
>
>
veloper of the software has the
power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause,
the software is not free."
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. Correct? I am just trying to make sure that I understand
this, for my own edification.
-Roberto
P.S. Please CC me, as I am not subscribed to -legal.
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
