On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:33:07AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote:
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html
> > Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html
> Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers.
>
> I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and adde
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html
Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers.
I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and added a note to
README.Debian.
The new package now depends on fluid-soundfont
>From my personal experience of 15+ years contacting with authors of thousands
of "free" sound fonts: they are usually composed of sounds taken from random
places, and nobody really knows who made them or what their license are. Many
of them take samples from other "free" sound fonts, and chain get
Hello legal team,
I am trying to update the Tuxguitar package from version 1.2 to 1.5.6.
The new version includes the soundfont "Magic Sound Font v2.0". While Tuxguitar
is licensed under LGPL-2.1+, the license of the soundfont file
(MagicSFver2.sf2) is not 100% clear.
The issue was discussed i
bject: License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs.
virtualbox-guest-additions-iso
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:01 +0100
From: Christian Kuka
To: team+debian-virtual...@tracker.debian.org
Hi all,
In our team we just came across the question which license apply to the
virtualbox debian package
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 07:13:50PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> [CC me please]
> Hi there,
> Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the
> following license:
> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
> -> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
As Walter
Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> [CC me please]
>
> Hi there,
>
> Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the
> following license:
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
> -> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
Looking at
/usr/share/doc/openjdk-7-jre/c
[CC me please]
Hi there,
Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the
following license:
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
-> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
...
1.1 “Compatible Licensee Implementation” means a Licensee
Implementation that (i)
fu
* Daniel Echeverry:
> 2012/12/29 Florian Weimer
>
>> * Daniel Echeverry:
>>
>> > I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font
>> > with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in
>> > debian/copyright file?
>>
>> Can you just remove the file and use the
2012/12/29 Florian Weimer
> * Daniel Echeverry:
>
> > I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font
> > with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in
> > debian/copyright file?
>
> Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead?
>
Hi,
O
* Daniel Echeverry:
> I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font
> with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in
> debian/copyright file?
Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ.
On 17/03/2012 11:14, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
> wrote:
>> Jérémy Lal writes:
>>> If i can tell the author "here's a known license that fits your needs",
>>> i can consider i answered him.
>>
>> That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what
On 17/03/2012 16:14, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
> If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an
> eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at
> http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you
> want to with the software. Its an eccentric
If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an
eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you
want to with the software. Its an eccentric license that is Debian
compliant, and wide open. Otherw
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:42:59 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
> Well that is a fun license.
>
> I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have
> copyright/patent laws applied to it.
>
> IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright
> law where copright law di
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
wrote:
> Jérémy Lal writes:
>> If i can tell the author "here's a known license that fits your needs",
>> i can consider i answered him.
>
> That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is
What he really wants is to be obtu
Jérémy Lal writes:
> If i can tell the author "here's a known license that fits your needs",
> i can consider i answered him.
That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is
"You may not release the Software under a more restrictive license
than this one."
trying to say that
On 17/03/2012 01:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Jérémy Lal writes:
>> could anyone help me resolve this license question :
>> https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
>
> That page contains more than one question.
If i can tell the author "here's
Well that is a fun license.
I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have
copyright/patent laws applied to it.
IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright
law where copright law disagrees.
It also constitutes license proliferation.
--
bye,
pabs
2012/3/17 Jérémy Lal :
> Hi,
> could anyone help me resolve this license question :
> https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
>
> i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.
Just for the record, the license says:
Copyright 2011 Isa
Jérémy Lal writes:
> could anyone help me resolve this license question :
> https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
That page contains more than one question.
If you want to include this software in Debian you need to get a
permission from the author to distribute and modi
Hi,
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Bernhard Reiter asked:
> The following license applies to one cardset included with
> pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to
> me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus
> okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't s
The following license applies to one cardset included with
pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to
me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus
okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't sure.)
Kind regards
Bernhard Re
Le Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 01:23:26PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
>
> Obnoxious advertising requirement: IMO this restriction makes the work
> non-free for the same reasons the similar requirement in the original
> BSD license makes a work non-free.
Hello everybody,
works licenced with advertisemen
Thanks Miry for the reply!
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Have a look at this part: "With the exception of content with an
> individual readme file, all
> content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
> distribution". It is not even valid for non-fre
Scott Howard writes:
> Hello - I'm packaging something new that has a custom license, and I'd
> an official opinion as to which repo it can go it:
Thank you for your attention to this topic, and for quoting the license
text here for inspection.
Overall, the language is poor for a description of
Hi,
Have a look at this part: "With the exception of content with an
individual readme file, all
content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
distribution". It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission.
My approach for this package was to package te gam
Hello - I'm packaging something new that has a custom license, and I'd
an official opinion as to which repo it can go it:
Platinum Arts Sandbox is a product of Platinum Arts LLC.
Product Webpage: http://SandboxGameMaker.com
Platinum Arts LLC Homepage (adults only) - http://PlatinumArts.Net
E-m
Karl Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a package
> (ftp://ftp.linuxcanada.com/pub/Quasar/1.4.7/source/quasar-1.4.7_GPL.tgz)
>
> that I want to bring in to Debian, but it has two licenses in the
> base directory.
The presence of a file containing license terms is not enough to act
as
(please copy me off list)
I have a package
(ftp://ftp.linuxcanada.com/pub/Quasar/1.4.7/source/quasar-1.4.7_GPL.tgz)
that I want to bring in to Debian, but it has two licenses in the base
directory.
One is called LICENSE.GPL and contains the usual GPLv2
The other is called LICENSE.COMMERCIAL
Faheem Mitha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a question about a software license. The software in question
> is not packaged for Debian.
Can you tell us what the software is and where it can be found?
> Is the following license a free software license (by the defn of the
> DFSG)?
The licen
Hi,
I have a question about a software license. The software in question is
not packaged for Debian. Is the following license a free software license
(by the defn of the DFSG)? It looks to me like a BSD style license, but
I'm not an expert. If not, what is problematic about it?
Please cc me
(Charliej has asked a straightforward question about a package's
license and whether it can be in Debian. Accordingly, I'm crossposting
to debian-legal; please follow up on that list. Charliej, please
subscribe to debian-legal to follow the discussion.)
Charliej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 11:44:20AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> Looking at JFTP, it looks like this only applies to some of the icons, not
> all of them. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the author to please
> relicense the icons under a free software license.
Thanks for the tip. Ac
On Sunday 09 September 2007 10:22:55 Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or
> not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images
> released like this:
>
> COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones
>
> read
(Please CC me, I am not on this list)
Dear Debian Legal,
Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or
not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images
released like this:
COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones
readme:
This i
Le lundi 25 juin 2007 à 20:17 +0200, Carlos Galisteo a écrit :
> Upstream source is released under the CNRI Python License [2] but AFAIK,
> the DFSG compliant 'Python License' is the PSF [3] one.
>
> As you can read in the PSF license full text, there's a controversy about
> the CNRI (1.6.1) co
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cord Beermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Hi.
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
It's the GNU *General
Cord Beermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to add a package to Debian with the following
> License-Statement:
> [...]
> PS: Please keep the Cc on the wnpp-bug #421513
This seems to be a repeat. The question is already answered, in the
bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrep
Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I want to add a package to Debian with the following
> License-Statement:
>
>
> The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
>
> You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All ch
Hi.
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes
must be uploaded to SourceForge.
Cord Beermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to add a package to Debian with the following
> License-Statement:
Does this mean you are the sole copyright holder? Or is this a work
derived from someone else's work? What is the license of that existing
work?
> ---
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:32 +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
> I want to add a package to Debian with the following
> License-Statement:
>
>
> The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
>
> You are free to use and modify t
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Cord Beermann wrote:
> I want to add a package to Debian with the following
> License-Statement:
>
>
> The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
>
> You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP
Hi.
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes
must be uploaded to SourceForge.
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence
> >as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html
>
> I think you're wrong here ... (certa
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
[...]
> >The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as
> >permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should
> >use the plain G
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such rest
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> > granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
> > cannot remove them because you are not th
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
>> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
>> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
>> cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
>
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
> You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
> granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
> cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
> Hence you cannot comply with the
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because
> > it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional
> > restrictions).
> >
> > What do
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
> Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional
> restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2?
>
> | (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the
> | Software in a physical product must provide you
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:52:05 +0100 (BST) Alan Baghumian wrote:
[...]
> You can find the exact license here:
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
Mmmmh, does the following "exception" constitute an additional
restriction with res
Hi,
I'm a member of the font packaging team. Red Hat recently has released a
set of fonts under the GPL with an exception about it's trademarks. This
fonts can cover the lack of Arial, Times and Courier fonts.
We started our work to package them for Debian but noticed that's better
to ask debian-
"Niko Tyni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation,
since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or
distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'.
All the documentat
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
> >[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
>
> Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
Right :)
> >The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
> >may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think this is trying to be
a shorter licence with the same effect as
the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it
follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have
one doubt: if
"Niko Tyni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any condi
Niko Tyni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
> may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions,
> as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also
> incorporate this code into your ow
Hi,
I'm packaging a set of Glk user interface libraries [1], which are
distributed under a custom license, included below. In my limited
understanding this is both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, but I'd like
to be sure about this. The libraries are going to be linked against
GPL- and BSD-licensed c
Hi,
I would like to know under which license your opensource hpt linux drivers are
distributed. Also, could you please include a LICENSE file in the downloadable
archives so the license is made clear?
thanks in advance,
filippo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 27 May 2005 09:31:37 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place?
> > Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional
> > delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? Seriously,
> if you can find references that provide constitutional delegation of
> these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all.
I agree with the first three lines: de
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism.
> It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as
> "noise" or "interesting discussions", depending on your point of view,
> mood, and temperature... but calling it "masturbation" is a bit
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:53:29 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and
> > discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to
> > read debian-legal.
>
> People are heavily discourag
On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:48:49 -0500 Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> > DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
> > the not-on-legal par
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> I talked with Branden yesterday and he explained this rather clearly.
> The requirement in the QPL is no different than the requirement in the
> GPL that source either accompany the binary, or that a "written offer
> be extended, good for 3 years, blah, blah, only charge
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
> > and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
> > debian-legal.
>
> People are heavily dis
Quoting "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
"You must ensure that all recipients of the
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
> and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
> debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged from reading debian-legal because it's
full of huge amounts of masturb
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
> not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues.
I disagree with
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:04:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
> >is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
> >summer, IIRC).
> This is just bullshit. A few people thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
>is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
>summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make
it non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UN
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How will this be summarised, will it tell us anything about the
> not-at-Helsinki-for-summer-vac part of the project and which is
> larger?
Regardless of anything else, a full recording of it should be available
afterwards.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECT
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
>> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
>> the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of
>>
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
> the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of
> issues.
Have you had a chance to outline this
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > I think a bug should be filed immediately...
> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
> not-on-leg
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
> is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
> summer, IIRC).
There's disagreement over that.
> Based on what has been stated and on
> http://packages.de
On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:58:41 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged.
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
Based on what has bee
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sanchez:
>
>
>>I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
>>already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
>>Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
>>licenses (as I understand it):
>>
>>* libc6 (LGPL)
* Roberto C. Sanchez:
> I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
> already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
> Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
> licenses (as I understand it):
>
> * libc6 (LGPL)
> * libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception)
* libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL)
* libstd
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 12:46:09AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> > The output of gcc is
> > not covered by the licence that covers gcc.
>
> That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any
> and all use of
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> The output of gcc is
> not covered by the licence that covers gcc.
That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any
and all use of any code generated by gcc, and makes no restrictions on
it.
There's no answ
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josh Triplett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license "explanation" gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly "open source" this project is would be grea
Josh, thank you for taking the time to point me to some great reading!
-Tom
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license "explanation" gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly "open source"
Tom deL wrote:
> A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
> and general tone of their license "explanation" gives me pause.
>
> Any opinions of how truly "open source" this project is would be greatly
> appreciated:
> http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource
Hello all,
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license "explanation" gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly "open source" this project is would be greatly
appreciated:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
In p
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:26:52PM -0400, Jay Bonci wrote:
> When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is
> mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific
> mention I see of that is at:
>
> http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
> and
> http://opencontent.org/
When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is
mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific
mention I see of that is at:
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
and
http://opencontent.org/openpub
http://opensource.org/licenses/ doesn't mention anything about t
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> as a person who does not feel that the QPL
> is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above.
For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should
probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections
to the QPL
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 11:04:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business
> use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to
> talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then.
> Otherwise, the next thing
JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not
> re-packaged and then sold by some other companies.
If by "free" you mean "available at no cost", then free software isn't
for you. Free software is about *freedom*, not a near-zero price.
One
Scripsit JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> May I ask you for some advice?
Sure.
> The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal
> but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that
> seems, to sort of, work.
We have no problem with dual-licensing schemes
JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.
The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to
everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that
want to use it as part of a
Hi again,
Yes you are probably right. The whole license thing is rather murky.
May I ask you for some advice?
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
* have a clear no-nonsense license
* to make the library free for all open source users
* to guarantee that it stays free and
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:49:53PM +0100, Michael Zehrer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be
> changed/added?
>
> Michael
>
> ---
>
> /*
> Copyright (c) 1994-2000 Yutaka Sa
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
