Michael Lustfield writes:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 5:29 PM Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
>> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 11:58:00PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > Packaging the software for Debian amounts to modification: minim
"Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 11:58:00PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Is the license below acceptable for inclusion into 'non-free'? It is
>> claimed to cover the tarsnap software, see
>> https://github
All,
Is the license below acceptable for inclusion into 'non-free'? It is
claimed to cover the tarsnap software, see
https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap and https://www.tarsnap.com/ for
background.
Regarding RFP/ITP status, there is now a Salsa pipeline building the
Debian package:
https://salsa
Hi
I'm working on packaging https://github.com/google/go-tpm-tools/ which
has a LICENSE file that claims:
A portion of the source code is derived from the TPM specification,
which has a TCG copyright. It is reproduced here for reference.
The file has some other problem [1], so I'm not confi
Soren Stoutner writes:
> On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote:
>> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:48:51 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> >> I don't
Soren Stoutner writes:
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:31:51 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I disagree. I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text
>> itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and
>> documented in debian/cop
Soren Stoutner writes:
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:44:18 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Interesting. How do you combine that view with the interpretation that
>> went into rejecting GFDL as a free license? I'm having trouble
>> following your line of
Sam Hartman writes:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes:
>
> Simon> Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you
> Simon> would like to treat the DCO as a license text?
> No.
>
> Simon> And that it
>
Soren Stoutner writes:
> On Monday, November 25, 2024 12:35:17 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> The DCO v1.1 published on https://developercertificate.org/ says:
>>
>> Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
>
Sam Hartman writes:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes:
>
> Simon> Hi. The DCO v1.1 published on
> Simon> https://developercertificate.org/ says:
>
> Simon> Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its
>
mån 2024-11-25 klockan 08:56 +0100 skrev Ulrich Müller:
> > > > > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > The DCO v1.1 published on https://developercertificate.org/ says:
>
> > Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its
> > c
Hi.
The DCO v1.1 published on https://developercertificate.org/ says:
Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.
The license appears non-free to me,
Sam Hartman writes:
>> "Jan" == Jan Mojzis writes:
>
> * Package name: randombytes
> Version : 20230126
> Upstream Author : Daniel J. Bernstein
> * URL : https://randombytes.cr.yp.to/
> * License : Public domain
>
> Public domain is problematic as a licen
Andreas Metzler writes:
> Hello,
>
> Do we consider ASN.1 modules (e.g. the specification of
> AttCertValidityPeriod in rfc 3281) to be code or specification?
>
> On one hand the rfc coyright fixup for "code components" in newer
> RFCs (post Nov 2008) explicitely includes ASN.1 modules as one of
Francesco Poli writes:
> But there's something unclear going on here: the debian/copyright
> file of the opendmarc package states
>
> [...]
> | As of the date shown at the top right of this page, the Contributors
> | have made this Specification available under the Open Web Foundation
> | Cont
Hi,
Has the Open Web Foundation Contributor License Agreement Version 1.0
licensed been reviewed for DFSG compatibility? I don't see it on these
pages:
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
The license text itself can be found in a recent package in Debian:
Francesco Poli writes:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:26:21 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Simon!
>
>>
>> Has this license been evaluated before? RFC 1950-1952 contains:
>>
>>Copyright (c) 1996 L. Peter Deutsch and Jean-Loup Gaill
Hi,
Has this license been evaluated before? RFC 1950-1952 contains:
Copyright (c) 1996 L. Peter Deutsch and Jean-Loup Gailly
Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any
purpose and without charge, including translations into other
languages and incorporation i
Simon McVittie writes:
> On 07/03/12 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
>> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
>
> This effectively means: recipients of the new libidn may choose any
> license which they
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo writes:
>>
>>> I believe GPLv2+|LGPLv3+ is incompatible with
>>> GPLv2|OpenSSL-linking-exception, used in ekg2.
>>
>> Thank you for a good data point. I've b
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> I have looked at licenses of reverse dependencies, and I did
>> found some GPLv2-only packages. That caused me to dual license
>> the package instead of going to LGPLv3+. (GPLv2-only and
>> LGPLv3+ are
(This was initially posted on debian-devel but it was suggested to also
bring this up on debian-legel.)
I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty ini
mån 2012-02-27 klockan 16:10 +0100 skrev Thomas Koch:
> Hi,
>
> I've prepared an update to Debian's doc-rfc package and found an 11 years old
> issue[1] whether RFC's can be included in Debians main repo or not. I just
> started using the internet around that time...
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Andreas Metzler writes:
>
>> On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Andreas Metzler writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>> > I have the feeling that the discussion I started is an academic one
>>> > anyway. Nettle
Andreas Metzler writes:
> On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Andreas Metzler writes:
> [...]
>
>> > I have the feeling that the discussion I started is an academic one
>> > anyway. Nettle's public key library (libhogweed) uses and links against
&g
Andreas Metzler writes:
> On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> The Blowfish code in Nettle has already been re-implemented under
>> LGPLv2+ but not released yet. I am working on re-implementing Serpent
>> under LGPLv2+, however there are multiple and incompatible test
The Blowfish code in Nettle has already been re-implemented under
LGPLv2+ but not released yet. I am working on re-implementing Serpent
under LGPLv2+, however there are multiple and incompatible test vectors
of Serpent and it is not clear which corresponds to the "real" Serpent.
Meanwhile, perhap
MJ Ray writes:
>> This question is important, because I couldn't find a public domain
>> implementation of this function.
>
> That's a shame but I don't know hmac_md5 myself. Is there a free
> software (rather than PD) implementation? There appear to be several
> HMAC-MD5 implementations in deb
Ted Guild writes:
> W3C is creating an excerpt license (current draft online [1]) and
> hoping to get public review and feedback, including particularly from
> the Open Source community.
The complete license is reproduced below, for easy review on
debian-legal.
One problematic part seem to be (
Adrian Bunk writes:
> - the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
> - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
> non-free
I don't think this holds. The advertising clause in the 4-clause BSD
license is GPL incompatible according to ('Original BSD license'):
http:/
Didier Raboud writes:
> Le lundi 9 février 2009 15:22:01 Simon Josefsson, vous avez écrit :
>> Yes, although looking at the code in skyutils2, it seems its only use of
>> openssl is to download web pages or something like that. Can't you use
>> libcurl instea
> You can download the latest smssend source code here :
>
> http://archive.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/smssend/
>
> To summarize what I understood :
>
> * skyutils(-dev) is LGPL and build-depends on libssl-dev - it visibly links
> statically against libssl-dev, because the resulting bi
Didier Raboud writes:
> Hi debian-legal,
>
> smssend was removed from Debian due to licensing issues (#399685 and
> #487523). As far as I understand it, the problem is/was the following :
>
> * the code efectively links to OpenSSL (through skyutils2)
> * its licence is GPLv2+ _without_ OpenSSL e
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 �Á� 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a �Á�crit :
>> The only
>> case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
>> package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
>> other cases, I would be interested to learn ab
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 13:34]:
>> > Current hosting services usually only have one project for a specific
>> > piece of software with a limited set of people allowed to change
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 11:26]:
>> > All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for
>> > the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting
>> > services for people needing to put their p
I expect the GFDLv1.3 license will be used by several projects soon.
Thoughts on its DFSG-status?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
License quoted below for easy commenting.
/Simon
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.3, 3 November 2008
Copyright (C
"Bryan Donlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Bryan Donlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've recently been discuss
"Bryan Donlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently been discussing[1] with another developer his libs3
> library - a library to access amazon's S3. It is licensed under the
> GPLv3, but links to curl, which in turn links to openssl. It's
> possible to port libs3 to use curl+libgnut
All,
The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
announcement below.
As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
terms. The intention is to allow code-like portions to be licensed
under a BSD-like license.
It would be useful if we can review t
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> License
> ---
>
> The DEP must have a license that is DFSG free.
>
> I've just pushed that to http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep0/trunk/ (I didn't
> think that needs any discussion; if I was wrong, it's easy enough to
> r
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon, thanks for forwarding this.
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Basically, this post is a For-Your-Information note, and while it
>> doesn't bring up something for discussion on this list, I do think a
&
All,
The IETF is about to change their IPR policy and turn it into a two-step
process where contributors assign rights to the IETF Trust which then
grant rights to others. The relevant documents are:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-06.txt
http://www.ietf.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> The GPL requires to publish "all" from "the work" to be published under the
> GPL but not more.
>
> - The build scripts in many cases are not part of "the work".
> This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf.
> This is true
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As far as I know, the FSF doesn't forbid anyone to use GPL with an
>> OpenSSL exception.
>
> That's entirely possible, but you haven't provided an example which
> isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can
> provide such an exam
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
>>>> luck convincing copyright ow
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
>> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
>> accept an entirely new license.
>
> I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path t
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, this is because *your* MUA is broken. The Mail-Followup-To header is
> not a standard of any kind, which is why only a handful of (broken) MUAs
> implement it. And I mean broken, because it should be named X-Something
> until it gets standardized.
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> > These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing:
>> >
>> > | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the
>> > | following ones are also fine:
>> > | * the 3-clause BSD license
>> > |http://www.gnu.org
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon, I would like to thank you for your effort in this struggle
> against non-free IETF documents in Debian (main).
> I really appreciate the time that you're dedicating to improving Debian
> from this point of view! :)
>
> Good job!
Thanks, that h
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
>
> A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how
> those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a
> DFSG-
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's
> too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list
> of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that
> appear
Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's
too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list
of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that
appear to contain IETF RFC or I-D's at:
http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ietf-in-src.txt
There is some discussion in one of the bug reports:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390664
(please read it first)
The problem is essentially, if I understood it correctly, whether
Debian source packages [in main] must be DFSG-free or not, or whether
it is sufficient that Debian
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 05:49:16PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Some of these documents MAY be freely available -- check with the
>> author -- but as far as I could see, in no case was this noted in the
>> copyright
Hi all.
A few months ago, I went over the package list manually to find IETF
I-D's, but I finally wrote a simplistic script to do this for me:
#!/bin/sh
URL='http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=draft&searchmode=searchword&case=insensitive&version=unstable&arch=i386&page=1&n
The IETF lawyer has written a proposal for a new outbound license to
third parties for IETF documents (i.e., most RFCs and I-D). We're
given one week to review it in a working group last call. Most likely
there will be an IETF-wide last call later on too, but the chances of
modifying anything the
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, there are DFSG-freeness issues in the package.
>
>>From COPYRIGHTS:
>>The package also contains code derived from RFC 3174 (SHA1). The code is
>>distributed with the following copyright notice by the Internet Society:
>>
>>Partly copyri
Niko Tyni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For IANA, the data actually is already in Debian main, in the doc-iana
> package. The e-mail correspondence found in the doc-iana debian/copyright
> file [3] indicates that the "rfc-copyright-story" document [4] applies
> to all IANA documents. This looks
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The RFC's published here all were made by individuals, and were
> not made by some IETF process.
>
> rfc1459 comes from a document that was always part of the irc
> source package.
Understood, but it seems that RFC 2810-2813 may have been improved by
the
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:22:43 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
>>> are (I believe)
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810
>>
>> That package seem to be in non-free now... I'm
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> text/xml2rfc
>
> From the debian/copyright file:
>
> | The software is released under the following license. Note that the
> | output produced by xml2rfc may include more restrictive copyrigh
I went over the package list more carefully, and it seems the only two
public domain RFCs that are included in Debian testing:
usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc951.txt.gznet/dhcp3-common
usr/share/doc/camstream-doc/tech/rfc959.txt.gz doc/camstream-doc
The following p
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Hi all!
>
> Hi!
>
>>
>> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
>> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
>> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
>> > problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not t
Hi all!
I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
and better than I
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Noèl Köthe wrote:
>> "document itself may not be modified in any way" is the main point.
>> The following are examples and more information. It looks like its
>> just a copy of a RFC license e.g.
>> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt
>
> Th
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> c. maybe it rfc releated and need waiting for RFC license discussion (i
>> dont know the status of it)?
>
> The RFC copyright licence problems have been discussed. See
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/threads.html#00151
> for one possibly relevan
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
> and they propose to use the following license:
>
> 1.1 License
>
>Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
>provided th
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
>>and they propose to use the following license:
>
>>Is this DFSG-free?
> It looks fine to me, but if it's still a draft then I think it would be
> useful
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:22:32AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
>> and they propose to use the following license:
>
>> 1.1 Lic
Hi. A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
and they propose to use the following license:
1.1 License
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
misleading author or version inform
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
>> "Kerberos" is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
> ...
>>
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:28:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE, Discuss, Hesiod, Kerberos,
>>Moira, and Zephyr are trademarks of the Massachusetts Institute of
>>Technology (
Hi! This was intended for debian-mentors, but since it is a legal
issue, I thought it would be more appropriate here.
I'm packaging Shishi, a Kerberos implementation, for Debian. The term
"Kerberos" is a trademark held by MIT, according to RFC 1510:
Project Athena, Athena, Athena MUSE, Discu
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe that is a free software license. RMS has reviewed it and
> thought it was OK. If people here would review it as well, that may
> be useful.
To simplify review, below is the Unicode Consortium's license.
FWIW, I reca
Daniel Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> This isn't in Debian yet but a couple of projects (1 LGPL and 1 GPL) I
> am trying to package include files from the Unicode site.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.c
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/Conve
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051209 10:38]:
>> (b) do not claim endorsement of the modified work by the
>> Contributor, or any organization the Contributor
>>
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You seem to have missed one occurrence of "unauthorized redistributed".
> I would suggest suppressing "unauthorized" there...
Ah, right. When doing that, I realized we could make it even more
readable. Here is the latest updated version:
c. The
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 06:09:54PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > P.S.: Please don't reply to me Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it.
>> > Reply to the list only, instead, I'd rather avoid receiving repl
A member of the IPR WG proposed to require that people modifying RFCs
would be required to add a "warning label". He suggested the
following license. Would this be DFSG free? I believe it would be.
It appears to be an extreme form of statements such as "clearly label
modified works as being modi
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:19:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nathana
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>> > Btw, the latest revised license reads:
>> >
>> > c. The
"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This specifically implies,
>>for instance, that unauthorized redistributed modified
>>works must not [...]
>
> "unauthorized" makes me think of license violations. That's not what
> we're talking about here
>
> Try this:
>
>> This
"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'e.g.' is correct for introducing an example. However, given the number of
> people who don't know the difference :-), "for example" is better.
I've changed it to "for example", thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Morally, I think it's indefensible to have promised to restrict
> -private's circulation and then to break that promise and
> publish without permission. But is the approach in the GR legal?
What about changing the PR, so that FROM NOW ON, the debian-private
l
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> > I'm not sure about my suggested "name of work" phrase; it's clunky,
&
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> If the license require ANY endorsement by the IETF to be removed,
>> saying the original work is an IETF RFC would not be permitted.
>
> Huh? The factual informati
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Smith wrote:
>> I think it is accecptable to allow the modified versions to say something
>> like the following, which the original
>> appears to disallow.
>> "This document is based on the IETF Internet Standard RFC, although
>> this vers
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> s/specifically imply/specifically implies/
> s/Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/
Fixed, thanks!
> I would also personally change the important sentance to this (changes
> marked by *'s):
>
> This specifically *implies* that *a modified version*
>
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
>> debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
>> the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
>> my proposed legal license,
> That
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license, and I want to check with this community
whether this proposed li
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And I wouldn't like to see Debian swept up in the apparent FSF
> campaign to marginalize OpenSSL and its maintainers by threatening
> legal action against anyone who links GPL code (FSF copyrighted or
> not) to OpenSSL. (I have not personally bee
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
>> either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
>> standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
>
> Thank y
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
> either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
> standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
Agreed. If someone from the Debian community has
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alternatively, you could try asking the relevant people if they'd grant
>> a more permissive license for the data table, in order to encourage the
>> wide and correct use of the standard surrounding it.
>
> Th
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of
> them, which may have taken a lo
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:04:44AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
>> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
>> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
>> (everything in it is an uncreative
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
