On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:47PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes:
>
> Simon> All, Is the license below acceptable for inclusion into
> Simon> 'non-free'? It is claimed to cover the tarsnap software, see
> Simon> https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap
ng the software for Debian amounts to modification: minimal
modification but modification anyway. That presumably means we
can't distribute it at all, even in non-free.
All the very best, as ever,
Andrew Cater
(amaca...@debian.org)
> /Simon
>
> Copyright 2006 - 2022 Tarsnap Backup I
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 03:18:36PM -0500, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> Over the years, the open source community, including Debian, has had a few
> lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the PHP license.[^1][^2][^3]
> The TL;DR sentiment of all these discussions amounts to: change t
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 05:22:17PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 6/11/23 16:37, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 01:19:48PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was stumbled on Söhne font collection, primarily due to ChatGP
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 01:19:48PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was stumbled on Söhne font collection, primarily due to ChatGPT
> uses it for its web interface. I'd like to also use it for hypothetical
> web app (let's name it foodb) to be packaged in Debian (due to design
> constraints
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 06:33:35PM +0200, Borja Sanchez wrote:
> Dear Debian Project Team,
>
> My name is Borja Sanchez, writting from Spain. I am currently planning to
> run a paid course where I will distribute a modified version of Debian,
> rebranded and renamed. This software will be offered
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 01:38:28PM +0100, Adam Ant wrote:
>
[Stripping HTML formatting where I see it - could you please use plain text]
>
> Large portions of the core code base are labeled as LGPL-2 - There is no such
> > licence. It is either GPL-2 or LGPL-2.1
>
> A bit of history:
>
> Linux
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 06:58:19AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:
> Dear Andy,
> dear list members,
>
> thank you very much for your reply and your thoughts on this issue.
> I want to pose two concrete follow/up questions if you allow.
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 13:00:08 +, An
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 07:33:45AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:
> Dear debian-legal-members,
>
> I am wondering, whether you consider 'The Unlicense' [0] to be
> DFSG-compliant? On the OSI-mailing list [1] has been a discussion
> arguing, that this license model is
>
> a) not global
> b) inconsistent an
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 12:42:52AM -0500, Scarlett Kelley wrote:
> My email account sk21rene...@gmail.com and scarlettdickinso...@gmail.com
> were hacked and they stole all of my crypto and used github and created an
> app called crypto kitties and the character octocat on GitHub I do not know
> ho
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:45:14PM -0300, Carlos Henrique Lima Melara wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
>
> Hi, folks.
>
> I'm the new maintainer of devtodo and would appreciate an assistance of the
> debian-legal on the license matter. As noted, devtodo is licensed under
> GPL-2 only, althou
at which the combination completed, and
the sender granted root access to the recipient. The law doesn’t really have
the tools to deal with these situations, as I discussed a couple of years ago
in the Legal Devroom at FOSDEM.
https://archive.fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/triggering_copyleft/
On 21/10/16 11:31, Jari Aalto wrote:
> The agrep software is currently in non-free. Latest code
> appears to have moved under ISC License[1] and I'd like to know
> if the code can now be moved to main.
Yes.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
On 29 January 2016 at 11:04, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> I mean the original ancient vim license of the times before GPLv2+.
But as you see they moved on from that. And for good reasons.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
is message.
Hope to hear from you soon!
Andrew P. Haseltine
Business Development Director
Direct Line : 734-274-4263
and...@createmytee.com
This e-mail was sent to debian-legal@lists.debian.org. However, we res
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 06:07:52PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> > "WL" == Walter Landry writes:
>
> WL> I found something here
>
> WL> ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
>
> WL> I do not think it applies in this case.
>
> WL> Cheers,
> WL> Walter Landry
>
> Tha
rib and non-free aren't part of Debian.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CACujMDPXnj5MReQerFwqOPyFXmPQ43=g_dooy7auav9xgji...@mail.gmail.com
On 17/10/2014 4:39 am, "Felix Natter" wrote:
> 3. I will remove the logo and tilesource/BingAerialTileSource.java from
> the jmapviewer package (which should resolve any licensing issues). josm
> will FTBFS, Sebastiaan and I will try to add a patch to josm such that
> it works without bing (but ma
hat'd put all web browsers and media players into
contrib. Bing logo isn't required for JOSM Bing plugin to function
properly, it's only required as a part of their service usage terms
and conditions.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debi
s bug for jessie, but it's possible to
download the logo at the runtime together with tiles themselves. This
wouldn't require to ship the logo inside the package while probably
wouldn't violate Bing's T&C.
--
Cheers,
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l
Hello debian-legal,
Could an 'official' person make a ruling on Guido's email from 2010
(link below)?
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/06/msg00016.html
The bug mentioned
(https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=515200) has
lingered due to no official response. It's still very
I'm leaning towards splitting them up because if the years ever change for
one person, they would have to be split up anyways.
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
>
> In the DEP-5 doc
>
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#copyright-field
>
> "Any formatting is permitted"
>
> "year
; that Ian Jackson is Ian Jackson. :)
Thanks for sharing the link, it's indeed a very interesting talk! :)
--
Cheers,
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:19:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> That means that it is for the FTP team to set that policy.
>
> AFAIAA this is the best description of the FTP team policy:
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
>
> > My impression is that the type of issue currently un
for Raspbian and its users? Or is Raspbian actually
violating the license?
[1] http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/4920
--
WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
bs
(git://github.com/pybombs/pybombs)
which will pull in all of the appropriate bits to fit in well with gnuradio
itself.
I'm having real problems getting _that_ to work because of libboost not
compiling nicely on ARM
All the best,
Andrew Cater
[amaca...@debian.org]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130901165243.ga9...@galactic.demon.co.uk
easier, because what they have now
surely doesn't allow redistribution. Which is why I've asked here so
others could possibly highlight the parts causing troubles.
--
WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
c things we'll have here discussed, more
possibilities to change them.
Thanks.
--
WBR, Andrew
Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Name: mapswithme
Source: <http://mapswith.me>
Files: *
Copyright: 2010-2013 MapsWithMe
License: END-USER L
Package: spread
Severity: serious
"3. All advertising materials (including web pages) mentioning
features or use of this software, or software that uses this software,
must display the following acknowledgment: "This product uses software
developed by Spread Concepts LLC for use in the Spread t
Hi,
I pretty much never post to this list, but is there a reason why
debian-legal gets these mails?
-tuna
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:11 PM, RNW Yorkton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ISSUE #15: May 13, 2011 7,593 Readers This Month!
> YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT
> Your Retirement By: Brandee Musiala
>
> Eating p
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> [replying on-list again after Andrew and I implicitly agree the
> discussion can be public]
>
> On 26-Mar-2011, Andrew Harris wrote:
>
> > As for your suggestion of using a better-tested license, I do not
> >
Whoops, forgot to reply all. Damn GMail. :/
-- Forwarded message --
From: Andrew Harris
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Chicken Dance License
To: MJ Ray
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:59 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Andrew Harris wrote:
> > I am the author of a
Hi!
I am the author of a new Free Software license called the Chicken Dance
License. It is a BSD-based license that offers extra hilarity over most, if
not all, other Free Software licenses. This new legal infrastructure that I
seek to create will result in less hair-pulling and teeth gnashing, an
On 08/03/11 15:53, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
> Copy/paste from a previous answer.
>
> If company B is using iText, Company B is bound by the license. This
> doesn't mean the producer line can't be changed; there are different
> options to add extra data:
> - They can add data to the existing producer l
On 08/03/11 18:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Ross:
>
>> "In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
>> License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created
>> or manipulated using iText."
>
> What is a "
reated or manipulated using iText."
This would make it clear that the when writing software using iText (the
covered work) you must retain the producer line, but would leave you
open to do what you want with the PDF afterwards, since you would no
longer be using a "covered work" to d
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 10:39:53PM +, Etenil wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I contact you regarding a possible breach of the terms of at least the
> GPL license on the Etch-based distribution Elive.
>
> http://www.elivecd.org/Help/License
>
> As you can see in the above link, the distribution is l
ause, do you think they would be suing people for
copyright infringement every time you went over the speed limit?
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan writes:
>
>> On 12/18/09, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
>> > owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different
>>
(Cth) s196(1): "Copyright is personal property..."
--
Andrew Donnellan <>< andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com
http://linux.org.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
aspect. It reveals
that I do not know the people behind this topic.
In the other direction, pointers to existing documents help me better
than statements which, based on my limited but non-trivial research,
are not defensible. I provided the documentary details to show how I
drew my
it holds that
intellectual property might also not be property. But I'm just a guy on a
couch.)
In the context of debian-legal, especially where the term "copyleft" is used, I
would have assumed that the default vocabulary is well aligned with that of
GNU, and to be expected.
e schema around.
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
has done is
enough, that the result is free (since it can all go to GPL), and therefore
these changes fit into Debian's policy.
Cheers!
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@l
istic License 2.0 which must be
preserved even after 4(c)(ii) relicensing to the GPL? My suspicion is that
derivatives must still be prohibited from those activities.
Is the resulting software (with these extra limitations) free software enough
for Debian?
Best regards,
ommendation as to the text of the licence *grant* - a legally
> separate entity - which you need to have as well as the licence itself before
> you have the right to do anything otherwise forbidden by copyright law.
If this section is not part of the license then which other parts of t
rson* until they *earn* my respect as a lawyer. If this
> is who I think he is, he lost that ... :-(
Congratulations.
As for me, "citations needed."
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
itly say. If you state that your software is distributed under GPLv2 "or
any later version" then you've also agreed that I have the option of following
the T&C of GPLv3, and without putting any creative change into the software.
Please, at this point if you insist that you are correct, please point to
something from the GNU or FSF or from Stallman which backs you up on this.
After all, I managed to find explicit statements from them which backed up my
points that LGPL and GFDL allow relicensing yet do not remove essential rights,
which was the point you were trying to make.
Cheers,
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message , Andrew
> Dalke writes
>> Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
>
> IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
>
> Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Here is relevant commentary
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message , Andrew
> Dalke writes
>>> I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit it, and
>>> by doing so you are taking away user rights.
>>
>> Well, the GPL does
There were other problems we've
found, like some of the LGPL packages not listing in the documentation all of
the third-party LGPL'ed components they were using and including. This has
triggered a long-needed review of what's going into the distributions.)
Thank you for your time,
am users of the CDK know about the
issues. This should be resolved within the next month, either by clarifying the
license and/or by removing that one file from the main distribution and doing a
new cut of CDK in January, and possibly also doing some refactoring of the jar
files.
Thank you for your time!
Best regards,
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ointed out that the clause "a Creative Commons license, allowing
redistribution but
NOT derivative works" is ambiguous, and can mean one of two different licenses.
The more restrictive prevents commercial use, which is contrary to the authors'
stated goals elsewhere. Do we need
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:48:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> > Do you know about any jurisprudence about that question?
>
According to David A. Wheeler, the US Department of Defense has
recognised FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) as being on the
same basis as Commerci
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Andrew McMillan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm considering packaging libecap, a library used by Squid 3.1 to
> provide modular extensible capabilities. It uses the following license
> which to my unpracticed eye looks fairly similar to a BSD wi
say it is available under a "Simplified BSD License".
Thanks,
Andrew
PS. I'm not subscribed - please CC me on any replies, thanks :-)
----
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com
;s fine, copyright or not, although the
effect of the warranty disclaimer could be debated ;)
[0]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt.research/browse_thread/thread/85d7519a3486193c/5817f0a5906c1bf7
--
Andrew Donnellan <>< andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andrew.donnella
sider a statement like 'Dedicated to the public domain'
to be an all-permissive licence grant, given the common English
meaning of the phrase. Probably hasn't been tested in court.
--
Andrew Donnellan <>< andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andre
it's public domain, so there's no restrictions on it and it
should be fine. (Although there is some debate going on about whether
it's in fact possible to disclaim copyright in some jurisdictions, but
I highly doubt the author will try to enforce anything.)
--
Andrew Donnellan &
Author's Source Code",
> but I'm not sure to interpret the point 2 in the right way.
Given that the first paragraph does appear to permit modifications I
would think this would be the way the author intended it, but he
really should write it more clearly.
--
Andrew Donnellan <
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> /*
>> *
>> *
>> * The Clearthought Software License, Version 1.0
>> *
>> * Copyright (c) 2001 Daniel Barbalace. All rights
nd the following disclaimer.
> *
> * 2. The original software may not be altered. However, the classes
> * provided may be subclasses as long as the subclasses are not
> * packaged in the info.clearthought package or any subpackage of
> * info.clearthought.
"T
s manual.
>
As you can see it says 'Version 1.1 or any later version', so it can
be used under GFDL 1.2 as well. So that should be fine.
Andrew
--
Andrew Donnellan <>< andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[do
icense,
> with the third clause slightly modified [1].
>
> Could you confirm this license is OK with debian?
Looks OK to me.
Regards
--
Andrew Donnellan <>< andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[
License."
[NOTE: The text of this Exhibit A may differ slightly from the text of
the notices in the Source Code files of the Original Code. You should
use the text of this Exhibit A rather than the text found in the
Original Code Source Code for Your Modifications.]
EXHIBIT B. Attribution Info
ight violation.
--
Andrew Donnellan <><
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.or
ms more a project attribution or
even an advertisement.) If it is considered an author attribution,
it's still only reasonable where the code is used as originally
intended in a graphical environment. If the code were somehow adapted
for non-graphical use there'd be issues.
--
A
Michael Pobega wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:40:25PM +0100, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
>> If someone releases a song in MIDI form under the GPLv2, and I use
>> non-GPL'd tools (e.g. a shareware licence) and royalty-free instrumental
>> samples to produce a high-quality W
s of MIDI files which are under the
GPLv2, one is restricted to an entirely free toolchain.
Would others agree with this reading?
Andrew Sidwell
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Finney wrote:
> Andrew Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'd really like to adopt a new manual, but it's by someone we can't
>> contact, and it's under a custom licence:
>>
>> Redistribution of unaltered copies of this docume
s is DFSG-free or not; I think it is, but
since one of the reasons for making the code Free is so it can be
included in Linux distributions and use services like SourceForge, I
don't want to inadvertently introduce non-free stuff into the game.
Thanks,
Andrew Sidwell
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
regardless of the interface pyfoo uses to invoke libfoo).
"it matters whether pyfoo forms a derivative work of libfoo"
That's exactly why it does matter how it links. According to the FSF
linking does create a derivative work, although I wouldn't think dl()
would be c
the library?
Almost definitely.
4. If Y just restructures the library in a more efficient manner.
I'd say yes.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL
imply drive more sales of the commercial
license anyway.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linu
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:24:26PM +0200, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The vdrift upstream uploaded a data tarball with some content licensed under
> the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.5 license.
>
> After discution there are agree to relicense these files under
ld tell the difference from the
original MIT licensed code anyway.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://l
icense?
Thanks for your consideration.
The combination of the MIT and BSD licensed code (ie. the whole file)
is under the most restrictive one, the BSD license.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com
nor the MIT licenses have a clause saying 'You may
not add additional restrictions.'
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subke
t;2. You may copy and distribute the SE provided that
the entire package is distributed, including this License.
3. You may make modifications to the SE files and distribute your
modifications in **a form distinct from the SE**. The following
restrictions apply to modifications:"
I think
ganisations.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org
Get f
doubt here.
Do they really? That would mean that all the copyright holders would
have given them exclusive licensing rights.
I haven't read the full bug log, but has anyone contacted the
composers directly?
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemai
'd say they are public domain. As the author states, a list of
function definitions may not even be copyrightable anyway, and I doubt
anyone except perhaps SCO would bring any legal action for something
like that, if it were copyrightable.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmai
se?
Cheers,
--
Andrew Saunders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d recommend just using the GPL or Expat licenses, they are tried and
tested and don't contain anything too specific to software.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress
pretty easily anyway...
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org
excuse for not freeing it, it's *NOT*
whether Intel is responsible, it's that they don't want you doing it
anyway.
ie. A crowbar can be used to break in to a house. I can give you one
and not be responsible if you break into a house, but maybe I don't
want you to anyway, s
ught experiment to bits as best as you are able. :-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00129.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html
[3] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report
[4] http://www.debian.org/vote/20
of bringing suit against
> you as high as possible to warred off long-shot litigation.
>
OK. Makes perfect sense to me.
And me. Ta muchly for the explanation.
Cheers,
--
Andrew Saunders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ification welcome.
Cheers,
--
Andrew Saunders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s/2007-February/005013.html
Are there any differences between this draft and CC3.0 Final?
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.p
ed a simple CMS then just use Joomla.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linux.org.auhttp://debia
t it's believed that none of the Creative Commons licenses
of any version (except CC-BY-SA Scotland v2.5 iirc) are DFSG
compatible. BY and BY-SA v3.0 will most likely be DFSG free thanks to
the effort of some Debian people.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemail
On 1/4/07, Masayuki Hatta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Password cracking in itself has always been legal AFAIK.
> Using password crackers to
n: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFnI9POKCtW8rKsRgRAlgXAKDYfWx8+pKERsV5LNzhO+jdzENsCQCgk6jq
zG3lx+DGP7W/R2quspHoZkg=
=FLHO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andrew Donn
on-to-GPL clause.
Um, the GPL is *more* restrictive than the LGPL. So modified versions
can *remove* the permission to link with proprietary software. (I
realise what you mean, but LGPL->GPL isn't the best example...)
--
Andrew Donnellan
-- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (prim
lity both ways?
(ie the PHP license has a clause prohibiting additional restrictions
that the GPL would put on)
--
Andrew Donnellan
-- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)
-- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
Jabber - [EMAIL
On 12/8/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
> definitely disallows it.
Which means you can't combine an OFL font with a GPL font to make a new
font (and not much else beyond
ly a (somewhat weak) copyleft.
I think the issue is more compatibility with other licenses - this
definitely disallows it.
>>The requirement for fonts to
>>remain under this license does not apply to any document created
>>using the Font Software.
>
> [...]
>
> As a
, while being IMO free, be problematic - what is the
definition of document? Also could things like Debian packaging be
counted as 'adding to'?
--
Andrew Donnellan
-- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)
-- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajd
-- Groucho Marx |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andrew Donnellan
-- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)
-- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (sec
1 - 100 of 1100 matches
Mail list logo
