On 2020-03-01 5:25 a.m., Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Gabriel Filion:
>
>> From what I could gather, the website specifies that all content is
>> covered by CC-BY 3.0:
>>
>> https://spdx.org/Trademark
>> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/terms/
>>
>> However, I'm not completely sure that the informatio
* Gabriel Filion:
> From what I could gather, the website specifies that all content is
> covered by CC-BY 3.0:
>
> https://spdx.org/Trademark
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/terms/
>
> However, I'm not completely sure that the information I found is precise
> enough..
The upstream repository a
Hello,
I'm working on a package for a ruby library, ruby-spdx-licenses, for
which I had some questions pop to mind about licensing:
The code ships a json file that contains information about all of the
licenses that the library helps with identifying. This json file was
copied from the SPD
Hi all,
I have a doubt about licensing. Recently
I was adopting a package and new upstream release
recomend libcurl4-openssl-dev as build dependency
instead libcurl4-gnutls-dev. Upstream author
released it under LGPL as usual.
Furthermore previous Debian versions was released
under GPL-3 but I&#x
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>>Is it really DFSG-free to have a license which prohibits placing a copy
>>you make of the document on an encrypted filesystem? Applying chmod o-r
>>to it (on a multiuser system)? Putting a copy of it in
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year.
> > This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the
> > bugs.
> > In most
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Package: cpp (standard; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.) [gcc-defaults/1.30 ;
> =] [add/edit comment]
> 23 [ ] [NONFREE-DOC:UNMODIFIABLE] cpp: contains non-free
> manpages
> Package: cpp-4.0-doc (required; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.)
> [gcc-4.0/4.0.2-9 ;
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year.
> This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the
> bugs.
> In most cases I don't think you can expect the maintainers to deal with these
> bugs on
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Package: xserver-xorg (optional; Debian X Strike Force et al.)
> [xorg-x11/6.9.0.dfsg.1-4 ; =] [add/edit comment]
> 211765 [ ] xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free
> Software License B is not DFSG-free
>
> As far as I can tell, the philosoph
I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year.
This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the bugs.
In most cases I don't think you can expect the maintainers to deal with these
bugs on their own.
What are the release managers planning to do
se respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Sam Ruby/Raleigh/[EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-java
, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: [Jikesrvm-researchers] Congratulations on Jikes-RVM 2.0 -
questions about licensing.
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the x-post but I think this is relevant to everyone included.
Hello.
For starters I would like to congratulate IBM and the RVM team on your recent
RVM 2.0 release (and published white-papers). This is definitely a great
contribution to th
I'd want to see the court decision. However, you can certainly protect against
this in your license, regardless of whether it is derivative or not.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This doesn't quite seem right. In fact, I think a precident has been set to
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 03:34:38PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What about folks developing Microsoft Windows apps with djgpp or cygwin32?
>
> Microsoft's application license explicitly prohibits you from running their
> applications on a non-Microsoft
From: Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (1) Programs that use other programs are derivative.
Yes. In general, operating systems come with licenses that allow you to use
their publicly-exported APIs without that use being considered a derived work.
But they make that _choice_ when they license their
From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What about folks developing Microsoft Windows apps with djgpp or cygwin32?
Microsoft's application license explicitly prohibits you from running their
applications on a non-Microsoft operating system.
If they wanted to prohibit certain classes of applic
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From: Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Microsoft C library source is licensed for incorporation into
> applications, but Microsoft OSes are not.
Before you make your final assertion of this datum, can you provide us with
a copy of the MS
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:50:31AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The Microsoft C library source is licensed for incorporation into
> > applications, but Microsoft OSes are not.
>
> Before you make your final assertion of this datum, can you provide us with
>
From: Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Microsoft C library source is licensed for incorporation into
> applications, but Microsoft OSes are not.
Before you make your final assertion of this datum, can you provide us with
a copy of the MS Windows license and the MSVC license? I'd bet that somewh
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Copyright is concerned with the making of copies, not "threads of control".
A unique aspect of software is that a derived work can be produced for
automatic assembly by the consumer. The derived work contains a set of
instructions to be executed by the custo
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And if someone writes a single-purpose GUI shell for the networking
> code in a certain proprietary desktop OS (to pick a completly random
> name, suppose the fancy GUI shell was called 'Netscape'), it
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And if someone writes a single-purpose GUI shell for the networking
> code in a certain proprietary desktop OS (to pick a completly random
> name, suppose the fancy GUI shell was called 'Netscape'), it should
> be considered a deriviative work of said pro
Bruce Perens writes:
> In contrast, when one piece of software calls into another, you can trace
> the thread of control from one work into another, and a significant part
> of the called work, perhaps all of it, is processed.
Copyright is concerned with the making of copies, not "threads of contr
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you write a single-purpose GUI shell for "dpkg", that should indeed be
> considered a derivative work of dpkg - even though it doesn't incorporate
> dpkg into its address space, the effect is not very different than if it had
> done so.
And if someone
Steve Greenland writes:
> Is 'system ("dpkg -command arg");' an "editorial elaboration"?
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No. It's a reference (a concept that predates software). A work that
> refers to another work is not a derivative of that other work.
No, you are reading more into th
On 12-Jun-99, 09:18 (CDT), John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland writes:
> > Is 'system ("dpkg -command arg");' an "editorial elaboration"?
>
> No. It's a reference (a concept that predates software). A work that
> refers to another work is not a derivative of that other work
Steve Greenland writes:
> Is 'system ("dpkg -command arg");' an "editorial elaboration"?
No. It's a reference (a concept that predates software). A work that
refers to another work is not a derivative of that other work.
> If I write a 10,000 word story that mentions the title of _The Deep Blue
On 11-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Perens writes:
> > "elaborations" is pretty broad. There's still room for the licensor to
> > state what they consider permissible use in their license.
>
> "Editorial elaborations". I think that is fairly clear. There is
Bruce Perens writes:
> "elaborations" is pretty broad. There's still room for the licensor to
> state what they consider permissible use in their license.
"Editorial elaborations". I think that is fairly clear. There is likely
case law defining this.
The licensor can certainly narrow the defini
> From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> USC Title 17, Ch.1, Sec. 101, Definitions
>
> A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduc
Maury Markowitz writes:
> if I have written concent from the authors in question to build a GUI
> shell is that OK regardless of the vagrity of the license in this regard?
Yes, of course.
> And who _are_ the authors in the case of GPL'ed code?
Who are the authors of any code? The terms of the l
On 11-Jun-99, 14:03 (CDT), Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing
> a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that
> shell script is not made public? I can see no difference between a
> GUI shell a
Bruce Perens writes:
> The GPL doesn't define guidelines for what is a derived product and what is
> not.
It doesn't need to. The law already does:
USC Title 17, Ch.1, Sec. 101, Definitions
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translat
Lots of excellent info, thanks everyone.
So far the basic answer appears to be "no one knows, because the
definition of derived is too vague".
I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing
a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that
shell scr
The GPL doesn't define guidelines for what is a derived product and what is
not.
Consider the problem of CORBA. It makes it possible to use a library that is
not tied into your application, and is not in your address space, as if it
were a static or shared library.
I'm hoping that GPL 3 will have
Steve Greenland writes:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
> that would be a derived work?
I would say no. RMS disagrees.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 00:22:37 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
>
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
>
> that would be a derived work?
A similar discussion comes up on gnu.misc.discuss regularly regarding
linking against a GPLed library like re
On 10-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If YoyoDyne wants to put a GUI wrapper around the dpkg, what then?
> > Does making a GUI wrapper for the product become a case of
> > "incorporating" it into a propietary system?
From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm curious about using GPL'ed software in a supporting role for
> non-GLP software. Let's say YoyoDyne takes the Debian installer
> verbatum and uses it to install the next version of their propietary
> InternetDestructor 5.x. Is this legally acce
I'm sure you all get asked this a lot, so please forgive me but
this is my first step into the open software world.
I'm curious about using GPL'ed software in a supporting role for
non-GLP software. Let's say YoyoDyne takes the Debian installer
verbatum and uses it to install the next ve
40 matches
Mail list logo
