> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> Debian and denial are remarkably similar words. Quoting
Anthony> mantras like that don't really further anyone's
Anthony> understanding of anything. If you consider
Anthony> stable/main/binary-i386/* to be a "prod
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Stephen Zander
Richard> wrote: [...]
>> provided that: (i) the Linux Ports of the JDK is not
>> integrated,
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> It's also grammatically incorrect, and should say "asserts
Steve> its right". Let's not have Sun come after us all on a
Steve> technicality, please. :)
You know, I even left out the apostrophe at first & then decided it
> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> First, I find this a curious phrasing. "asserts it's
Richard> right"? On what basis? Should we take this assertion at
Richard> face value? If this is a right that Sun granted, it
Richard> would be nice to s
Please cc me as I'm not on this list...
As the ftpmasters have finally gotten around to looking at the latest
jdk1.1 packages (they sat in queue/new for over six months), the
subject of java licensing has again arisen. Attached is the amended
debian/copyright file I am proposing to put into the
Please cc me, I'm not on legal (theads about Java notwithstanding)...
Before I ITP this, does the following satisfy the DFSG. It looks like
a BSD licence with the advertising clause intact:
Copyright (c) 1999 University of Chicago and The University of
Southern California. All Rights Reserved.
> "Jeroen" == Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeroen> I don't believe the rest of the world will ever support
Jeroen> software patents. Probably the European directive can
Jeroen> already be stopped.
So we're in violent agreement about the fate of non-US :)
--
Stephen
> "Jeroen" == Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeroen> I hope you mean "when the US doesn't support software
Jeroen> pantents anymore" here.
No, I meant what I said. While at least one country in the world
refuses to recognise software patents, there will be a safe place for
> "Walter" == Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Walter> DSS and IDEA are both patented in Europe, so putting it in
Walter> non-us won't help. There is also the minor problem that
Walter> non-us is going the away.
I personally don't believe non-US is going away until the en
> "Walter" == Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Walter> The patent issue is not a problem specific to the license.
Walter> Rather, it depends on what algorithms are implemented.
Walter> What algorithms are used? A usual suspect is IDEA, which
Walter> is patented in many
Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to -legal...
Does anyone have any thoughts on the following licence? Specificall,
is the comment about placing code in the public domain (point 2)
restrictive in the DFSG sense and do the potential patent issues
(point 6) require anything other that uploading to
> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about
Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my head.
Stephen> If companies are going to release under a free license
Stephen> (and get the fanfare
Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Read it again. This is clause 3 of the supplemental
Stephen> terms. Clause 3 pertains to distribution of binaries:
This is Sun's supplemental terms for the
> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> I don't think that the concerns are about the extra clauses
Mark> that Blackdown added in their supplemental license. They
Mark> could be a bit more clear as has already been noted. It is a
Mark> bit unclear how "Linux
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> It is probably enough for non-free, as least for the
Henning> Linux-based architectures. It couldn't be included in
Henning> Debian GNU/Hurd non-free, however.
Unless Hurd can run unaltered i386 Linux binaries, the
Blackdown has been given permission by Sun to alter the terms of the
licence to allow the redistribution of Blackdown released binaries by
Blackdown mirrors and Linux distributions, not just Debian, regardless
of whatever else they may distribute.
The terms granting this permission appear at the
> "MS" == Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> Blackdown is not Debian. Unless Debian has permission to
MS> redistribute, it cannot go in non-free.
Mark, did you actuall read what I wrote?
> "AJ" == A J Rossini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AJ> 511$ more /usr/doc/j2sdk1
>>>>> "Egon" == Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Egon> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be able to answer
Egon> this...
Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
copyright file includes the additional ter
Please cc me, I'm not on debian-legal...
> "Jeffry" == Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeffry> Nope, non-free (discriminates against non-americans). If
Jeffry> I read this right, unless someone can show prior written
Jeffry> approval from the US Government to distribute
> "David" == David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> haval.cpp - Copyright 1992 Yuliang Zheng.
>> idea.cpp - Copyright 1992 Colin Plumb.
>> mars.cpp - Copyright 1998 Brian Gladman.
>> md2.cpp - Copyright 1994, 1995 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>> serpent.cpp - Copyright 199
Please cc me, I'm not on this list.
Can someone give a cursory glance over this licence for any
non-DFSG-ness?
--
Stephen
"And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!"
(Please note this license only applies to version 4.1 or later. Earlier
versions are covered under a slightly
> "Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs
>> providing the necessary hooks to insert encryption software to
>> be restricted too.
Julian> debian-legal, anyone know the answer to this one?
It *used* to
> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> The Hurd will be able to run Linux binaries, not by
Marcus> emulation, simply by running them (only direct use of
Marcus> kernel syscalls need emulation). As Linux is not a defined
Marcus> term, referring to it d
BTW; if anyone is discussing this exclusively on debian-legal, please
cc me: I'm not on that list.
> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> What the hell is "GNU/Debian linux"
The jdk *as it stands* doesn't even support Hurd, so refering to it in
a licence i
ebian linux distribution of the Java(tm) Development Kit is
subject to the following additional terms and conditions:
1. The software is provided to the GNU/Debian linux distribution
("Debian") by me, Stephen Zander, in accordance with the terms of the
JAVA(TM) DEVELOPMENT KIT VERSIO
> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> You need to have permission from Sun to grant the right of
John> redistribution to those who receive copies from you. Right
John> now it appears to me that you can give me a copy but but I
John> cannot give a copy of my
> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> You have signed it. Debian has not.
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that Debian is a legal fiction and
unable to sign anything; that's why SPI exists.
>> (iv) Derived Binaries are distributed subject to a license
>> agr
> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> Package: jdk1.1 Version: 1.1.7v1a-2 Severity: grave
Richard> According to its license, we're not allowed to distribute
Richard> this package at all: (caps mine)
Richard> 1. Limited License Grant. Sun grants
> "john" == john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
john> BTW, I did not write the paragraph you quoted that discusses
john> javag and jikespg.
Opps. Well, actually I knew that, my editing was just a little
careless. Sorry.
--
Stephen
---
It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded ec
> "john" == john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> These are made by running the source file java.g through a
>> program called jikespg, which in turn is binary-only available
>> (but free for download). I am not sure of the policy
>> implications of this, three of the four are e
> "john" == john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
john> I can see no reason why it would not be perfectly legal to
john> telnet to a foreign host from the US and run a crypto
john> program there. The program isn't crossing the US border.
Run software or develop software? The later is
31 matches
Mail list logo
