El 11/8/24 a las 14:36, Vasyl Gello escribió:
The directory in question is a Kodi "skin", or a set of media files and XML
files
that gets interpreted by Kodi skinning engine (like a script).
I think it will depend on the way kodi interacts with those skins.
Unfortunately, I don't know kodi or
El 11/8/24 a las 11:19, Vasyl Gello escribió:
Recently FTP Master Thorsten Alteholz pointed me to the fact that mixing code
licensed under GPL-2 only with code under GPL-2+ / GPL-3+ is not allowed in same
repository [1].
I would say that's not a good characterization of the problem.
The proble
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> > > // 4. If anything other than configuration, indentation or comments have
> > > been
> > > //altered in the co
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Karl Goetz wrote:
> This is not a strong feeling, simply a comment:
> I find it strange to add a licence that was created with a very specific
> goal in mind (relicencing wikipedia) which will expire in 9 months
> (August next year).
Ok. A good reason not to do it is enough. I
Hello.
If the consensus is that GFDL 1.3 is as DFSG-compliant as it 1.2 was,
then I would like to include it in common-licenses in base-files for lenny
(in addition to 1.2, that is) as a "bonus".
Reasons:
* The symlink GFDL is supposed to point to the latest version available.
* Works under GFDL
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Russ Allbery:
>
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> >
> >>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> >>> later" under the GPL version 3?
> >
> >>> An
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Firstoff, I'm not sure the "BSD" license mentioned in DFSG#10 is the
> 4-clause BSD.
Currently, it is not, but it was. See Bug#43347.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Santiago Vila:
>
> > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been published by the
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > +
+ file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
+ that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
+ licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
+ hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.
I disagree with this.
> This proposal does essentialy two things:
>
> - Disambiguate GPL/LGPL versioning requirement 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/debi
FYI: The FSF will release the GNU GPL version 3 this Friday. See:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2007-06/msg00013.html
Before anybody submits a bug report against base-files: Is there an
official statement from Debian about the DFSG-free status of GPLv3?
I would like to put it in com
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Achim Bohnet wrote:
> 'My' Problem:
>
> From GPL 2b) I get the impression that either the two files need to
> be removed or all the other LGPL code relicensed to GPL. But
> the 'compatible' from the 5) in dfsg-faq sound like the mixture is
> okay and everything can stay as i
Hello.
After a discussion on debian-user-spanish about the GPL, I found about
this package in contrib:
Package: ida
Depends: [...] libmotif3
AFAIK, this violates the GPL license of ida. Am I missing anything?
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
reassign 284340 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 3.0.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
>
> Please remove reference to a specific copyright holder (The Regents of
> the University of California) in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD and
> renam
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
> following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>
> The Dict
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What are the legal ramifications of creating an ISO by adding
> packages (some OSS, some proprietary) to a sarge-i386-netinst.iso?
By point 9 of the DFSG, licenses for software in Debian must not place
restrictions on other software that is distribute
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is
> > this
> > in non-free?
>
> This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye,
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 20:39, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > "Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think the best choice from a Free Software point of view would be
> > two licenses: one that offers the no-binary-distribution license to
> > everyo
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
> I'm interested in packaging the File Archive Utility "arc". I'm not sure if
> there is an official "owner" any more. A current source code (Last change in
> 1991) can be found at various locations on the net, i.e. in the FreeBSD
> project:
>
> http://www
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> If anyone's got a free moment or two, could they pass opinion on the
> following as a licence. I'm especially interested in how it'd interact
> with other licences, esp. the GPL.
>
> # This work may be modified and distributed under any terms, lic
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I read:
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Debian Press Team wrote:
> > > Thank you for your interest in the Debian Project!
> >
> > Debian Press Team,
> >
> > Please don't spam the Debian Legal Team.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Please bug the spammer so i
Michael Zehrer wrote:
> is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be
> changed/added?
> [...]
> Permission to use this material for evaluation, copy this material for
> your own use, and distribute the copies via publically accessible
> on-line
> media, without fee, is hereby g
On 10 Dec 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The license is basically perl "Artistic License", so unless I'm
> > missing anything, it's DFSG-compliant.
>
> However, the "reasonable copying fee&quo
The license is basically perl "Artistic License", so unless I'm
missing anything, it's DFSG-compliant.
See /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic and make a "diff -w".
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Does anyone know of some free software that walks like Pine, talks like Pine
> and looks like Pine but in fact is not Pine? (something like nano instead of
> pico, mutt-fans please hands off the keyboard)
GNU mana, but it's a dead project (UW was going to sue the FSF for it)
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> SV>No, if Debian accepts a special permission from UW to distribute modified
> SV>binaries, they will never see the need to make pine free software.
>
> This might be true, but I'm more interested in the opposite question:
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> SV>License does not explicitly allow to distribute "modified binaries", i.e.
> SV>binaries produced from modified source.
>
> How about denoting the release with "-L", as suggested in the legal notices
> the
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
> agreement:
> (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
> (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, s
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Note that translations do not share the same copyright as the original works.
> This is true since the "BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
> LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS" (overview available at
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/be
On 26 Sep 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...]
> > It does not prevent the program from being
> > DFSG-free, [...]
>
> How does it not violate DFSG 9?
How it does? this software != other software
Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote:
> i'm making the package of a library (libevent) which has this license
> this looks like a derived form of BSD license anyway i don't know
> if i can put it under bsd license or i have to cut'n paste the license
> inside the copyright file (anyway it looks debian comp
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]:
> > Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a
> > set of conditions a license should meet so that the program
> > distributed with such license c
martin f krafft wrote:
> [please CC me on replies]
>
> "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify,
> or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may
> not."
>
> 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/
>
>
> This is kinda meta-DFSG and kind
Martin Schulze wrote:
> BUT: If we distribute scripts (shell, Perl, Python etc.) or PHP
> files, that are patched before they are packed into a .deb file,
> they normally don't contain such notices, even though the GPL seems
> to require them, and we do distribute plain files in these cases.
In ge
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> "augie"
> has been made available as freeware,
> and no restrictions have been placed on its use.
The problem is that "no restriction on use" does not say anything
about allowing modifications or not (DFSG 3).
> "augie" may be freely re-distributed,
> provided that this tex
> Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
> Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not
> limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and
> backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS
> im
Yann Dirson wrote:
> 1. Main clause says: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
> SNNS's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Christian Surchi wrote:
> [Please Cc: to me]
>
> We have at least a package (linuxfacile) in woody, under FDL (Free
> Documentation License: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
> Is that license DFSG free?
DFSG is for Software (the "S" in DFSG), so it's not an
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Could someone please point to me the relevant part of GPL that states that?
I think it's point 2:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such mo
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> This political problem is my concern here. I understand that I CAN (if I
> wish) release the modified sources under the GPL. My specific question here
> is whether I HAVE TO release it under the GPL if I link with the GNU
> Readline library (which
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Ronald L.Chichester wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, you wrote:
> > In any event, U.S. law at least acknowledges the concept of a
> > "collection copyright." To cite another example: M$ claims copyright
> > for Windows, even though significant parts of Windows are copyrighted
>
Hi.
Do we really need a copytight notice in /etc/motd?
The only thing in Debian I see it's not made from individual packages
are the Packages.gz file and the directory layout in ftp.debian.org
and CD-ROMs, I don't think this is copyrightable.
So: Does it really make any sense to copyright Debian
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Michael Stone wrote:
>
> > Am I missing something, or is the current pine license
> > (http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html) ok for non-free?
>
> I can try to get the ball rolling.
>
> Okay for non-free pretty much only means okay to
On 17 Jan 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>
> > > If the software has a patch clause, we require that modified
> > > binaries can be distributed. But this particular pac
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>
> > While I find licenses with patch clauses odious, they fall within the limits
> > of the DFSG.
>
> I think not.
I mean: I think not if a patched binary may not be distributed.
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 11:25:19AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >* Adopt potato postinst which applies patches at installation time to
> > > be
> >
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>* Adopt potato postinst which applies patches at installation time to be
> in line with somewhat peculiar mirror license.
I don't want to be nitpick, but if patches have to be applied at
installation time, then it's non-free.
Am I missing an
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 09:27:05AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > What kind of free licence make such situations possible ???
> > > > (for me it is not free even a little bit if author
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> Could anybody explain pine licence?
What exactly do you want to see explained?
> Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
> agreement: [...]
I understand this in the sense that "this release" is the (unmodified)
version b
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks
> > > for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binar
There is a package in main with the following copyright notice:
Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright
On 23 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Mr. Bar does not need to read through to section 2 - the second
> paragraph of section 0 is enough:
>
> | Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> | covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> | running
Hello.
At the request of Antti-Juhani, I plan to update the
/usr/doc/copyright/Artistic license in base-files to the latest one, which
I would take from the current perl source package.
Before doing so, I made a diff, and found the following differences:
The following paragraph is *removed* from
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that
> I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL? The _text_ of the OPL says
> "OpenContent License", not "OpenContent Public License".
>
> If the answer is yes,
>
> a) can it
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> Isn't that why there is a non-free? Some apps require 'special
> permissions?' And because some people want them?
non-free is for non dfsg-compliant software which, however, may be
distributed by FTP.
pine is in non-free because license does not al
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> If you don't care about non-free, you can stop trying to convince the
> biologists to use Debian, because the vast majority of biology programs
> is not DFSG-free (for various reasons, the most common being that the
> licence prohibits selling).
I
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wednesday 3 March 1999, at 13 h 51, the keyboard of Santiago Vila
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > #ifndef RMS
> > > if we want Debian to succeed in that field, non-free is an essential
Paul Nathan Puri:
> Are you against the existence of the non-free directory?
No, I'm just against requiring "special permissions" to distribute things.
Stephane Bortzmeyer:
> I personnaly often asked for distribution clearances (almost all biology
> packages are non-free,
> #ifndef RMS
> if we w
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> UW gave me permission to distribute my amateur pine.debs at
> http://ompages.com/debian/pkgs/pine/pine.html.
>
> I'm curious about the nature of the legal controversy over this app.
Debian is dedicated to free software and it is not in the business o
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Kristoffer H. Rose wrote:
> Is the following DFSG-free? It is the license of the "Standard ML of New
> Jersey" system. It does not discrimate commercial uses but it *does* worry
> me that there is a requirement of only distributing "without fee" ...
It just means that you d
Hello.
My main concern about this issue was that anybody making a diff between
0.10.35-6 and 0.10.35-6.1 could think that I changed on my own the license
of many files from GPLed to LGPLed.
Since GPL is more restrictive than LGPL, and I do not own the copyright
for the gettext package, I'm sure I
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > gettext had a security problem, Bug #28850, which has been fixed by
> > Vincent Renardias in gettext_0.10.35-6.1 (NMU). (Thanks Vincent).
> >
> > However, the fix consi
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > gettext had a security problem, Bug #28850, which has been fixed by
> > Vincent Renardias in gettext_0.10.35-6.1 (NMU). (Thanks Vincent).
> >
> > However, the fix consisted
Hi.
gettext had a security problem, Bug #28850, which has been fixed by
Vincent Renardias in gettext_0.10.35-6.1 (NMU). (Thanks Vincent).
However, the fix consisted in copying a set of files from libc,
which is LGPLed, into gettext, which is GPLed.
May be this really be done? (I think not).
Tha
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Hi Santiago,
>
> > I can still write free software using GPLed code fragments.
> > I can't write free software using TAO fragments, because TAO itself
> > forbids me to do so. I think there is a big difference.
>
> "Free" by the definition of the GPL.
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> >
> > People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> > If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
>
> Hmm, what about the GPL (going off o
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> >
> > People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> > If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
>
> Hmm, what about the GPL (going off o
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> - Doug writes:
> [snip]
> ...why would anyone want to distribute TAO under a different
> name?
This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
If they do not have this freedom, T
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> The package tao, currently in Incoming, has this paragraph in its license:
>
> You may copy, modify, distribute, or sublicense the LICENCED PRODUCT
> without charge as part of a product or software program developed by
> you, so long as you pre
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I would like to dispute this:
Mmm, sorry, it seems that paragraph "c)" talks about the "written offer,
valid for at least three years, etc.".
This would mean that we would have to keep the source in ftp.debian.org
for thr
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: project
>
> Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4"):
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > i. When distribution is made by public anonymous download, the
> > > licence restriction is satisfied if the source code is made a
73 matches
Mail list logo
