> 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
* 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 a known license that fits your n
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 Isaac Z. Schlueter (the "Author
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 modify the s
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
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
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
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
(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
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
"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
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
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
Michael Zehrer wrote:
> is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be
> changed/added?
> [...]
> Permission to use this material for evaluation, copy this material for
> your own use, and distribute the copies via publically accessible
> on-line
> media, without fee, is hereby g
>And now I wonder if "License: public domain" in debian/copyright is
>enough
>for a DFSG free package.
Public domain is not a license; it is "not copyrighted". The issue
is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned
his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by d
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 08:17:56PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> ...
> This prevents modifying and distributing the code for experiments with
> other data formats. Thus non-free.
Thanks a lot for this info.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian
Scripsit Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been
> asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able
> to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better
> than I do, is this licence fr
Dear Jean-François,
You are under the classical issue around the OpenSSL license and GNU
General Public License. (check :
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.cgi#LEGAL2)
So you can add the classical exception (like for example : LyX is
doing that for
Hi Hussain,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:18:38PM +0100, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote:
> Hi,
> I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another
> program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me.
> I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub
Scripsit "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1) Source code for the entire package must be distributed with
> any derived work incorporating ANY part of PRAG.
> is a little vague though. Does he mean that I can not take a .c
> file and place it in another work?
What he presumably m
> Could you please comment on this, or point me to other locations
> where I could ask?
>
> You can find a copy of the original license at
> http://www.copyleft.de/pub/author/fabian/debian/prag/Copyright
>
sounds like yet another BSD license (tm).
The wording on the first item:
1) Source code
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>
> > 5. The documentation is completely and totally non-free
>
> Nod. Do you think removing the documentation from the package constitutes
> modifying it, and would violate the license?
Removing the documentation would violate this:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 1) Any use of analog which is illegal under international or local law is
>forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of
>the person committing the action.
>[Some jurisdictions regulate the collection and processin
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 07:06:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > If we disqualify breaking the law as a field of endeavor, this provision
> > still violates the DFSG. Remember, what's called breaking the law where I
> > live (selling marijuana, prostitution) might be called m
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 07:06:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > If we disqualify breaking the law as a field of endeavor, this provision
> > still violates the DFSG. Remember, what's called breaking the law where I
> > live (selling marijuana, prostitution) might be called m
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> If we disqualify breaking the law as a field of endeavor, this provision
> still violates the DFSG. Remember, what's called breaking the law where I
> live (selling marijuana, prostitution) might be called making a living
> somewhere else.
The license only speaks about int
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:48:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > What do people think of the following licence? I think there are tons of
> > problems, and I'd like a laundry-list of them to bring to the author's
> > attention.
> >
>
> There's a few issues with this license
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:48:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> What do people think of the following licence? I think there are tons of
> problems, and I'd like a laundry-list of them to bring to the author's
> attention.
>
There's a few issues with this license that I can see at first glance:
1.
On Oct 04, Joey Hess wrote:
> 5) You may modify the program in any way you wish provided that all of the
>following conditions are met.
>i) Any modification in the source code is clearly marked as such;
> ii) No modification is made to my documentation;
> [Any documentation needed o
72 matches
Mail list logo
