Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote: > And, were is the problem ? The GPL is especifically against > distributing the result of the linking of GPLed code with > uncompatible code. No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking is considered by the FSF to be a case of derivation

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote: >> And, were is the problem ? The GPL is especifically against >> distributing the result of the linking of GPLed code with >> uncompatible code. > > No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:10:00PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > > DFSG #2: > > > > > > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in > > > source code as well a

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now. > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: > > >

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:18:40PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > > >>Sven Luther wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > >>> > >>> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROT

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) > > No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking is > > considered by the FSF to be a case of derivation, but it is certainly > > not the only way that a derived work can be generated. > And since when does the FSF have the final word

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There were proposals to use the LGPL (already the licence of the ocaml > runtime, except a small modification like the one gcc uses), or a dual > LGPL + QPL licencing. Would the LGPL be ok in the case of emacs .el > files, Yes; since it is more permissiv

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is. > > Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily > find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so > who

Re: Bug#211765: Request for someone to talk to copyright holders

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:38:45PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:25:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > So, is there anyone here with the time and energy to look into this issue, > > > and ideally o

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is. >> >> Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily >> find any number of

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now. > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: > > >

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 10:29:24PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] I'm tired of this argument. You can interpret that as capitulation if that's important to you. We appear to have divergent premises. You regard trademark saber-rattling as po

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:55PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > (if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be > > copyrighted in the US) > > This doesn't help Debian; I think the "bitmap font copyright" thing > is an isolated s

Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:42:18PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > Hi, > > thanks Matt, for polishing my first draft of the letter[1]. I > incorporated your changes, made the wording "University of Leeds" more > consistent and changed "Debian GNU/Linux" back to "Debian" (IMO the > project name is "D

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:10:00PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > > uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation of > > > .elc files. > > > > Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is the > > problem. > > If Debian sets up everything so that the u

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is. > >> > >> Yes, and I

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yeah, but as i see it, there is no need for such a licence change, and > the upstream author being an intelligent person, will probably > immediately see it, and respond to me : but there is no need for such > a change. And then, were do i stand ? I was ex

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:21:31AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yeah, but as i see it, there is no need for such a licence change, and > > the upstream author being an intelligent person, will probably > > immediately see it, and respond to me : but

Quake WADs (was: Packaging Linuxant's driverloader?)

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:42:06AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2004-01-09 03:48:49 + Joel Konkle-Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I guess the meat of my question applies to ndiswrapper > > > as well. ndiswra

Re: DFSG Freeness of Patent Reciprocity Clauses

I was asked on IRC to contribute to this thread, so I will. :) On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:52:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > We must look at the entire freeness of a work, not just the copyright > freeness. > > However, I think patent revoking clauses that are along the lines of: > >

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > [Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more > on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to > d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)] [...] > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM

Re: [vorlon@netexpress.net: Re: Bug#181969: [mdadams@ece.uvic.ca: Re: JasPer licensing wrt Debian Linux]]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 05:08:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote: > > Can anyone give me an actual example of a project that > > would like to use the JasPer JPEG-2000 codec in a non-interoperable > > way? > > Almighty duh of all duhs

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm tired of this argument. You can interpret that as capitulation if > that's important to you. We appear to have divergent premises. You > regard trademark saber-rattling as potentially a friendly act. That is a deliberately falsified and misle

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > As you can see, linking is not the me

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:49:20PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > There were proposals to use the LGPL (already the licence of the ocaml > > runtime, except a small modification like the one gcc uses), or a dual > > LGPL + QPL licencing. Would the LG

Legal question about a model

Hi, I found a new very promissing software for graphical mapping of EEG at http://tempo.sourceforge.net/ I contacted the author and filed an ITP. Preliminary debian packages at: http://neuro.psychologie.uni-oldenburg.de/debian/dists/unstable/main/ Unfortunatly there is a DFSG problem: The softwa

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hoop jumping to evade the intent of licenses doesn't work unless you > have expensive lawyers. Which we don't. And even if we had, we'd want *others* without expensive lawyers to have the freedoms we promise them nevertheless. -- Henning Makholm

ckermit: license advice

Hello. I'm in the process of adopting the ckermit package (currently in non-free). I've been talking to upstream (Frank da Cruz from the kermit project at columbia university), and we both would like to see ckermit in main. He is prepared to consider changes to the license. The license was modifi