Surprise Invitation

Arrangement with a sould mate Make your profile: http://thesitefordating.com/web/?oc=53034054 The dating web site created by women

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as > complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license > their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully > understand. I (and, in my opinion, any

Re: CA certificates

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing > the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate > certificates): > > The license seems to violate DFSG §6. I

Re: CA certificates

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other > words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their > public keys at all? They might do in some jurisdictions, but I would guess that in most they don't. The public ke

Re: CA certificates

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other > words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their > public keys at all? My understanding is that copyright laws speak about original works

Re: Bug#247427: ITP: elfsign -- ELF binary signing and verification utilities

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing > anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is > worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly > questionable as to whether t

Re: Bug#247427: ITP: elfsign -- ELF binary signing and verification utilities

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 02:24:54PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > Package name: elfsign > Version : 0.2.0 > Upstream Author : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > URL : http://www.hick.org/code/skape/elfsign/ > License : Artistic > Description : ELF binary signing a

Re: Bug#247427: ITP: elfsign -- ELF binary signing and verification utilities

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:58:35PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing > > anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is > > worded. It is a terrib

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The GPL is actually a rather interesting case here, since it *does* > require the preservation of credits, and in a way that I believe > Debian finds acceptably free. 2c of the GPL is actually somewhat controversial. I don't know whether anyone actually

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion > | of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and > | distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 > | above, provided that you also meet all of

Poly/ML license

Greetings! Is the following DFSG free? Take care, -- Camm Maguire[EMAIL PROTECTED] == "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah

Re: RE: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

Le Tue, May 04, 2004, à 01:18:35PM -0600, Burnes, James a écrit: > 4. How about this for a self-referential solution to the problem. In > ReiserV4, you could view the ReiserV4 credits by simply looking at the > credits meta properties in reiser4.o or any other software. Sounds like > a good ide

Re: Poly/ML license

On 2004-05-05 14:41:23 +0100 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings! Is the following DFSG free? No, it forces disclosure upstream. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00011.html I am researching free software licences written for UK law at the

Re: Poly/ML license

Greetings! MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2004-05-05 14:41:23 +0100 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Greetings! Is the following DFSG free? > > No, it forces disclosure upstream. See > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00011.html > OK, tha

Re: Squeak in Debian?

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Keep in mind that "it is extremely unlikely" was only part of the > > argument. There is also that we are only liable "to the extent that" > > our distribution is involved in the case. Further, we can choose to

moosic package contains obfuscated code

Hello, I've been playing with oggplayer recently and I've found moosic taht is written in python. I've tried to see what's in it and I inteded to play with it. But, the moosic python module appeared to be obfuscated. It seems to be the choice of upstream since the makefile in the original tgz is

Re: Squeak in Debian?

"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Keep in mind that "it is extremely unlikely" was only part of the > > > argument. There is also that we are only liable "to the extent that" > > > our distribution is

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:00:50PM -0600, doug jensen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor > > mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you > > some time for f

Re: moosic package contains obfuscated code

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 19:40, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > Hello, > > I've been playing with oggplayer recently and I've found moosic taht is > written in python. I've tried to see what's in it and I inteded to play > with it. > > But, the moosic python module appeared to be obfuscated. Moosic is not

Re: moosic package contains obfuscated code

Scripsit Nicolas =?iso-8859-15?Q?=C9vrard?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So I was wondering, since this is problem is only with the binary > package should I file a bug against moosic stating that obfuscating is > an error or does it seems an acceptable policy to your eyes ? If the source package contai

Re: Bug#247427: ITP: elfsign -- ELF binary signing and verification utilities

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing > anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is > worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly > questionable as to whether t

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First and foremost: Hans, this is your project. Someone willing to replace entire APIs with things that feel like files is obviously not afraid of creating something new. So at the end of the day, it shouldn't matter too much that it's in Debian N