Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-03 Thread Jérémy Lal
On 03/12/2012 10:38, Florian Rothmaier wrote: > Hi Jérémy, > > > Am 01.12.2012 12:28, schrieb Jérémy Lal: > >> I thought "public-domain" wasn't DFSG (because it's not in some countries). > > That's interesting and something new to me. The "public domain" > is listed on the page > http://wiki.de

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-03 Thread Florian Rothmaier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Francesco, Charles and Kuno, thank you very much for your helpful answers and clarifications! I didn't receive Kuno's original mail (maybe because there was no CC to me) but I hope that I got the relevant parts from the quoted paragraphs (his reco

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-03 Thread Florian Rothmaier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jérémy, Am 01.12.2012 12:28, schrieb Jérémy Lal: > > I thought "public-domain" wasn't DFSG (because it's not in some countries). That's interesting and something new to me. The "public domain" is listed on the page http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLic

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-01 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 20:34:39 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] > If you would like, you can open a wishlist bug, and if the specification is > updated in the future (there is no timeline for this and my opinion is that > currently it would be premature), this bug will remind us to consider adding a

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-01 Thread Jérémy Lal
On 01/12/2012 12:17, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:47:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > >> Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : >>> >>> P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for >>> the upstream files, but "(c) 1996-2012 by

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-01 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > Since one of the "standard short names" for the License field is > "public-domain", I thought that specifying > > Copyright: public-domain > License: public-domain >[explanation of why the files are in the public domai

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-12-01 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 10:47:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > > > P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for > > the upstream files, but "(c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A. McGlynn" does not > > look right, as

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-11-30 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > P.P.S.: I am not sure what you should write in the Copyright field for > the upstream files, but "(c) 1996-2012 by Thomas A. McGlynn" does not > look right, as long as the upstream work is really in the public domain > (which,

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-11-30 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:19:01 +0100 Kuno Woudt wrote: [...] > On 11/30/2012 02:01 PM, Florian Rothmaier wrote: [...] > > > > fortunately, the upstream author Thomas MyGlynn made a new release for > > which he added a statement that the code is in the public domain. Hi Florian, this seems to be rea

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-11-30 Thread Kuno Woudt
Hello, On 11/30/2012 02:01 PM, Florian Rothmaier wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear Francesco, fortunately, the upstream author Thomas MyGlynn made a new release for which he added a statement that the code is in the public domain. In my debian package which can be foun

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-11-30 Thread Florian Rothmaier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear Francesco, fortunately, the upstream author Thomas MyGlynn made a new release for which he added a statement that the code is in the public domain. In my debian package which can be found at http://mentors.debian.net/package/fits or http://anons

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-08-30 Thread Florian Rothmaier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Francesco! Am 28.08.2012 19:19, schrieb Francesco Poli: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:37:46 +0200 Florian Rothmaier wrote: > >> Hi to everyone involved in debian-legal, > > Hello! > >> >> I've got a licensing issue related to the astronomical Java l

Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"

2012-08-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:37:46 +0200 Florian Rothmaier wrote: > Hi to everyone involved in debian-legal, Hello! > > I've got a licensing issue related to the astronomical Java library > "fits" ("nom.tam.fits") from Thomas McGlynn. > > The newest release can be obtained at: > http://heasarc.gsfc.

Re: Licensing Question: Public Domain?

2001-02-20 Thread Colin Watson
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm planning to package Norm Walsh's (aka Mr. DocBook) java catalog >classes he wrote while working at Arbortext. The license simply says >it's public domain (see below). > >Don't we need something that explicitly says we can redistribute this >software? S

Re: Licensing Question

1999-07-01 Thread bruce
From: Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The only concern they have is over patented technology in their product. I > don't know from their e-mail if they are referring to their own technology, > or to technology they license from someone else. Patents, both the Contributors and those of third p

Re: Licensing question

1999-02-19 Thread Jules Bean
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote: > Hi, > > Would this license (the one that comes with MajorCool, a webinterface to the > Majordomo package) fit in non-free? I think so, right? > > --- > THE "NO-FRILLS" LICENSING AGREEMENT