On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 04:22:19AM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> Is it really an executabe binary, i.e. a computer program for any real
> or virtual programming or machine language?
>
> I don't think that (non-executable) binary data is a problem. If the
> data is produced/generated with some
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 08:44:49AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Frost writes:
>
> Tobias> as explained earlier: click-wraps are no-no's.
> By this dxo you mean
>
> 1) clip wraps are incompatible with the DFSG? (I ag
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> To me it would feel similar to a dialog box, where you have to click
> "Don't show this again" to continue the first time. This is not that
> uncommon in graphical tools, so there is some precedence for this.
as explained earlier: click-
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:38 PM Andreas Tille wrote:
> :
> > I admit I also considered a wrapper but with a different functionality:
> > Simply check whether --citation was used before and if not do so.
>
> If you mean a wrapper similar
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:43:34PM -0400, Jeffrey H. Johnson wrote:
(IANAL, IANFTPM (I am not ftp master), etc.)
I hope you can really find a way to use a standard license. License
profiliration
is really becoming harmful to FOSS.
ENOTIME for a complete reply to your mail, but two remarks:
(..
Hi Andreas,
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:25:29AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since this issue becomes complex I'd like to bring up it at debian-legal
> list for advise.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
(usual disclaimer: IANAL. This below is only are few cents and thought on the
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 09:10:23AM +1000, David Bannon wrote:
> I thank you for that Tobias, a positive move !
>
> However, I don't believe it will help. I think TK is concerned about
> conventional licenses allowing someone to remove his name from the
> package, ship it as its own. Near as I can
Hi David,
I just responded to the ticket in github:
Let me briefly chime in… I was interacting on the debian-legal thread about
this topic:
@kryslt it would be very helpful if you could confirm that your
interpreation
of you license also expliclitly allows modification and distr
.
>
> Remaining hopeful.
>
> David
>
>
> On 14/9/20 5:21 pm, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:49:10AM +1000, David Bannon wrote:
> >
> > Chiming in…
> >
> >> *** Daniel's Issues
> >>
> >>> Also, ba
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:49:10AM +1000, David Bannon wrote:
Chiming in…
> *** Daniel's Issues
>
> > Also, based on Daniel Hakimi's mail, it sounds like the KControls
> > author may have illegally changed the license, since there is no
> > indication in the commit message that they got approval
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:28:05AM +0100, Michael Tremer wrote:
(...)
> I consider myself a great advocate for free software. Almost everything I do,
> and certain all I can, is free software - available for anyone to use.
Let me nitpick on that Free software also requires the ability to modify
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:14:15PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 4/20/20 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
> >> Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the
> >> same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference.
> >
> &
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:22:52PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 4/20/20 12:15 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
> >> It's pretty obvious from this clause that the requirement to provide the
> >> sources
> >> of your modifications for at le
Discussion thread on d-legal:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2020/04/msg1.html)
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:13:48AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 4/20/20 11:04 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> > * On 4/20/20 10:48 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >>> For sure it fails the Dissident Test.
> >> Does it? The part which requires the availability of the source change
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:06:23AM +0200, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> * On 4/20/20 9:03 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > Secondly, for the APSL-1.2, it seems that the only clause that makes the
> > license non-DFSG-compliant is this one:
> >
> > > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your De
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 01:07:54PM +, Lumin wrote:
> Hi debian-legal,
>
> The license for the last libtensorflow.so dependency is very confusing
> because it looks quite incomplete, or exetremely overly simplified.
>
> > https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/third_party/fft2d/L
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 02:00:09PM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> Le vendredi 03 août 2018 à 20:50 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > > Sébastien Villemot writes:
>
> > > However, the last clause of the licence says that the “user agrees to
> > > make a good faith effort to use the Software in a
Am Freitag, den 09.12.2016, 14:08 +0100 schrieb Markus Frosch:
> Hey legal people,
> The DRBD upstream switched the license for one of their components
> "drbdmanage" from GPL to a special license (non-standard).
>
> I'm thinking about it would fit DFSG.
>
> Disclaimer: The software in particular
Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2016, 21:18 +0300 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
> > | 3d. Hacks/cracks, keys or key generators may not be included,
> > | pointed to or referred to by the distributor of the trial version
> >
> > We (Debian) cannot possibly agree to such a condition. It may well
> be
> > violat
Am Montag, den 24.10.2016, 06:07 +0200 schrieb Daniel Stender:
> Hi,
>
> I was packaging privacyIDEA and came across this license text [1]:
>
>
> We kindly ask you to only use these themes in an unmodified manner
> just
> for Flask and Flask-related products, not for unrelated projects. If
> yo
Am Dienstag, den 04.10.2016, 22:43 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> 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
> Hello Vincent,
>
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:29:22 -0700
> Vincent Cheng wrote:
>
>
>> >> License: RDS-Data-Security
>> >> License to copy and use this software is granted provided that
>> >> it is identified as the "RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message
>> >> Digest Algorithm" in all material ment
Dear d-legal team,
I'm currently intend to package rbdoom3bfg from
https://github.com/RobertBeckebans/RBDOOM-3-BFG and I'd like to have an
second eye on the license conditions set up by id Software.
I think they are both GPL-compatible and DFSG free, but as said I'd love
to have an review. (The p
24 matches
Mail list logo
