On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:22:20PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > =
> >
> > Anki's logo is copyright Alex Fraser, and is licensed under the AGPL3
> > like the rest of Anki's code, but with extra provisions to allow more
> > liberal use of the logo under limited conditions.
>
> I read this as a
> =
>
> Anki's logo is copyright Alex Fraser, and is licensed under the AGPL3
> like the rest of Anki's code, but with extra provisions to allow more
> liberal use of the logo under limited conditions.
I read this as a dual licence. That is, the user may, at their option
use the AGPLv3 permi
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:27:00PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Under the following conditions, Anki's logo may be included in blogs,
> > newspaper articles, books, videos and other such material about Anki.
>
> These actions would seem to already be licensed by the AGPLv3, without
> these additon
Julian Gilbey writes:
> Anki is licensed under the AGPL3 (GNU Affero General Public License
> 3), but the logo is licensed with the following conditions.
Thanky ou for providing the specific conditions here, so we can discuss
them in context.
> IANAL, and cannot work out whether these make the
Hi!
Anki is licensed under the AGPL3 (GNU Affero General Public License
3), but the logo is licensed with the following conditions. IANAL,
and cannot work out whether these make the use more restrictive or
less, and therefore whether there is a problem with DFSG-freeness of
the logo. Advice woul
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
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
Hello Debian
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, I am
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
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?
/*
* Copyright 1992 Purdue Research Foundation, West Lafayette, Indiana
* 47907. All rights reserved.
*
* Written by K
[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
40 matches
Mail list logo
