On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:05:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that
> > the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as
> > xfonts-utils.
>
> Thanks. I'll correct that.
>
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that
> the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as
> xfonts-utils.
Thanks. I'll correct that.
Often it's not clear to me which package is being discussed, so I
some
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 11:16 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this
> license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in
> contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any
> intenti
Le mardi 06 juin 2006 à 00:30 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
> > US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another
> > country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from
> > *all* countries in the world, are you?
>
> Probably not, which means that I cannot accept to be
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public
> License", included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
> was recently removed b
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this
> license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in
> contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any
> intention of risking the
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
>> >> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
>> >> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
>> >> > distribution of the Subjec
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this
> license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in
> contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any
> intention of risking the *
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:27:38PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all
> applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of
> the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import
> con
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:33, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
> > >> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply
> > >> > with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
> > >> > distribution of
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
> >> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
> >> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
> >> > distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to,
> >> > all
Scripsit "Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> >> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply w
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 15:39:01 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
> > Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly,
> > 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's
> > hardly non-free.
> Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry:
Sorry.
W
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 13:14:49 +0100, Stephen Gran escribía:
> that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a
> license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction?
After seeing licenses that claim not to be affected by any laws that would
mak
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:14, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
> > On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
> > > > El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
> >
> > esc
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
> > > El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
> escribía:
> > > > But it doesn't say that - it says applicable law
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
> > El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
escribía:
> > > But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
> > > export laws then there's nothin
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
> El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía:
>
> > But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
> > export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would
> > apply to you
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía:
> But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
> export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would
> apply to you in any case.
It says applicable laws, including US export
On 6/5/06, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as
> part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free.
There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others
jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreemen
On Monday 05 June 2006 11:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
-cut--
> > It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are
> > axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a
> > non-free condition.
>
> ***all applicable laws and regulations***
>
> U.S. export laws ar
On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
>> > all applicable laws and regulations in connectio
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
>> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
>> > distribution of the Subject Software
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
> > distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to,
> > all export and i
On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:58:18 +0200 Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
> 2. License Terms.
[...]
> (iii) Recipient hereby indemnifies SGI for any liability
> incurred by SGI as a result of the distri- bution of Accompanying
> Technology or the use of other license terms.
Danger: indemnification clause.
I'
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:52:22 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I hate to say it, but I suspect there is a lot of non-free stuff in
> 'main', simply because most maintainers do not check their licenses
> carefully. Even the best maintainers.
I agree: it's sad but (probably) true... :-(((
--
The CID Font Code Public License is non-free, per the discussion linked to by
bug 211765.
At the time, Branden couldn't find anything actually under the license.
> One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils'
> package, and the full license included in its debian/copyrigh
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]
> I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public
> License", included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
> was recently removed because the lice
[Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]
Hello,
I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public
License", included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
was recently removed because the license was regarded non-free; this
statement seems to come from Xo
29 matches
Mail list logo
