Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
> lists.]
Indeed.
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The version in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is very specifically the
>> UCB version,
> A m
[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
lists.]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
> > information. There was more
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
> information. There was more than one "BSD" license in use well before
> USB's Office of Technology Licensing withdrew the 4-clause version.
[snip]
While this is very interestin
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence
> predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the
> advertising clause in July of 1999 and the D
"brian m. carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Please follow up to -legal only.
Done.
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
> >following statements:
> >--
> > 1. Redistri
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:36:44 +0100 Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:46:31PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon:
> > > Hi,
> > > I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
> > > following statemen
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:46:31PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon:
> > Hi,
> > I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
> > following statements:
> > --
> > 1. Redistributions of source
[Please follow up to -legal only. Full quote for the benefit of -legal.]
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon wrote:
Hi,
I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
following statements:
--
1. Redistributions of source code must r
* mike skaggs:
> I have a copyright question for you. To the extent my company wants
> to use the Debian Linux O/S as an embedded O/S in a device, can you
> please advise what copyright notice I should cite to? I understand
> I must include the GPL language but after reading your policy
> manual
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:52:36PM +, Rich Walker wrote:
> Shouldn't the license be part of the dpkg -s output?
>
> At present, anyone wanting to select packages based on their license
> status has "DFSG-free"/"DFSG-non-free" as the selection criteria.
>
> This seems limiting.
We don't have
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:52:36PM +, Rich Walker wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> That seems a bit harsh; I think sarge would be quite usable for this
> >> purpose, as long as you avoid GFDLed bits. Is there a
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:52:36 + Rich Walker wrote:
> Would it make sense to add a License: field to the status information
> available to dpkg?
IMHO, no.
Because the Freeness status of a package is far more complex than a
single license name.
Many times you have works under different licenses
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> That seems a bit harsh; I think sarge would be quite usable for this
>> purpose, as long as you avoid GFDLed bits. Is there anything GFDLed in
>> Debian that isn't in /usr/share/{doc,info,man} ?
>
>
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's true, but it seems pretty unlikely that an embedded system would
> have any documentation installed.
Lots of embedded systems would like to be able to use the Debian
packages more or less whole -- and then remove things like
/usr/share/doc if the
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Note that since you are creating an embedded system, the size of all
>>these files may be an issue. I believe you could legally supply them
>>separately as long as they are supplied in the same distribution
>
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Note that since you are creating an embedded system, the size of all
> these files may be an issue. I believe you could legally supply them
> separately as long as they are supplied in the same distribution
As long as we have stuff
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:00:03PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote:
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html I'd see any action going the
> way of discussions first and then correction. If it actually went to court,
> I'd expect a claim for statutory damages as there are no real damages.
Si
"Brian Thomas Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wites
> "Christopher Priest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why should anyone but the source be "required" to keep or distribute
source
> > code when it is freely available from Debian. The web was not
> > available when
>
> Debian may not be around fo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Chris
>
> Very pragmatic reasoning. I wondered the same thing. From a
> practical standpoint, why would someone ask us for source code (ie,
> order it, pay for replication costs, then wait for it to be shipped)
Not everybody who will get ahold of your product ha
"Christopher Priest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why should anyone but the source be "required" to keep or distribute source
> code when it is freely available from Debian. The web was not
> available when
Debian may not be around forever. Many embedded devlopers don't
publicize which distribu
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> (Please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The
> authoritative source for this information would be the actual licenses
> for the packages you include.)
[snip]
Excellent text. Could someone put this on www.d
-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Copyright Question
Wouldn't a typical install of Debian also properly install all the licenses
required? Do the Debian install scripts break the licenses of the component
software? Disk space is so cheap I can't see any developer spending time to
remov
Wouldn't a typical install of Debian also properly install all the licenses
required? Do the Debian install scripts break the licenses of the component
software? Disk space is so cheap I can't see any developer spending time to
remove anything put in by an install.
Why would he have to do more tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a copyright question for you. To the extent my company wants
> to use the Debian Linux O/S as an embedded O/S in a device, can you
> please advise what copyright notice I should cite to? I understand I
> must include the GPL language but after reading your policy
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> > > > Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
>
> > > "... and to a
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > > Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
> > "... and to alter it and distribute it freely"?
> While all logic and r
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> > Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
>
> "... and to alter it and distribute it freely"?
While all logic and reason might say that is good enough, it at least
one no
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
"... and to alter it and distribute it freely"?
--
Henning Makholm "Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi."
Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this ok for Debian?
Yes.
--
Henning Makholm"De er da bare dumme. Det skal du bare sige til dem."
Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they
> don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work.
> Fair enough I think. :-)
>
> Is this ok for Debian?
Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
(which tu
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:50:41PM +0200, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
> This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they
> don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work.
> Fair enough I think. :-)
>
> Is this ok for Debian?
Looks good to me. It's in the general MIT/BSD family
[Note: I am CC'ing the debian-legal mailing list, which is concerned
with the process of evaulating licenses to determine whether we can
consider them "free" and include them in the distribution.]
> "jrj" == Joseph M Reagle Jr (W3C) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jrj> We are going to have to put
I raised an issue with the W3O regarding DTD licensing. I'm including
here my previous correspondance. I have another followup in my next
message from the W30 and my response.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
--- Begin Message ---
Hello. I have the responsibility of a
33 matches
Mail list logo
