( Please do not consider this message as a spam. We may remove your e-mail
address from our list )
Dears,
We have found websites registered by free or open source.
what have we to do for our website ? Our website's content is a
non-software open detailed and free project.
..
I've filed RFP 273693 about the JRockit virtual machine for Java.
JRockit is definitely non-free, but what I'd like to know is whether
the re-distribution agreement is good enough for it to go into non-free
if someone wants to package it.
I've attached the re-distribution license terms to
"h
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004, Johan Walles wrote:
> I've filed RFP 273693 about the JRockit virtual machine for Java.
> JRockit is definitely non-free, but what I'd like to know is whether
> the re-distribution agreement is good enough for it to go into non-free
> if someone wants to package it.
>
> I'
I'm unforturnately unable to post the license agreement in text format
to either this list or to the RFP; it seems as if it gets eaten by a
spam-filter along the way. I've contacted the listmaster though, so
we'll see what happens. In the mean time I'll be happy to send my
textified version o
O Mércores, 6 de Outubro de 2004 ás 04:24:31 -0700, Johan Walles escribía:
> Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to
> get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper?
> I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute, forbid
But wouldn't that be covered by paragraph 2.1?
"
2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive,
non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise
include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and
(ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, ei
Scripsit Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian
> representative.
There is no such thing - Debian is not a legal entity, so nobody is
qualified to sign legal stuff on its behalf.
--
Henning Makholm"Vi skal nok ikke begynde at un
In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't
even enough for non-free.
Johan: if you can get BEA to license it under terms which amount to
"Begin license. Any recipient may distribute this code without
royalty. End of License." then it can go in non-free. But that's a
p
AFAIU, this could be a show-stopper. I'm working on having the EULA
changed, but I'll have to get back to you if / when this happens.
//Johan
-Original Message-
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: 06 Oc
-Original Message-
From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:21:14 -0400
Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
In any case, that would create a D
Gotcha. Looks like a show-stopper to me.
//Johan
-Original Message-
From: Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:59:28 +
Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Johan Walles <[EMAIL PR
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Johan: if you can get BEA to license it under terms which amount to
> "Begin license. Any recipient may distribute this code without
> royalty. End of License." then it can go in non-free. But that's a
> pretty basic requirement even for non-f
Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:21:14 -0400
> Subject: Re: JRockit in n
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Johan: if you can get BEA to license it under terms which amount to
>> "Begin license. Any recipient may distribute this code without
>> royalty. End of License." then it can go in non-free. But
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Huh? I have always understood that there were only two criteria for
> > going into non-free:
> > 1. That the Debian mirror network can legally distribute the source
> > and binary packages.
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't
> >> even enough for non-free.
> > Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why
> > this would be so?
> Be
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Huh? I have always understood that there were only two criteria for
>> > going into non-free:
>
>> > 1. That the Debian mirror network can legally
Hi,
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I think the ideal solution would be to change hspell so that it can
> build outside of the OO.o source tree; as far as I know, it is OK to
> have some GPLed and some non-free plugins for the same LGPLed program,
> as long as they are not all distributed together.
The hs
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes. But there is no need for the package to be distributable in any
> > other context than a mirror of the Debian archive.
> Sure there is -- in the context of a partial mirror, for example, or
> in the context of a
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >> In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't
>> >> even enough for non-free.
>
>> > Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > lib/atanl.c
> > lib/logl.c
>
> If you look into the glibc CVS log of sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_atanl.c
> and sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_logl.c, you see that the copyright holder
> (Stephen Moshier) has gi
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:24:31AM -0700, Johan Walles wrote:
> I'm unforturnately unable to post the license agreement in text format
> to either this list or to the RFP; it seems as if it gets eaten by a
> spam-filter along the way. I've contacted the listmaster though, so
> we'll see what ha
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For these borrowed files from other GNU or free software projects, I think we
> still need an explicit note in the files distributed as part of gnulib.
OK, let's start with atanl.c and logl.c. I see that glibc has fixed
this problem by adding a proper
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > The purpose of the "special exception" clause is so that also non-GPLed
> > packages can use autoconfiguration.
>
> Yes. However, that purpose doesn't apply to GPLed modules, as they
> can't be linked with non-GPLed packages.
But since *.m4 files are often copied from one m
To fix diacrit.h and diacrit.c I installed the obvious patch:
2004-10-06 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* diacrit.c, diacrit.h: Add GPL notice.
Index: diacrit.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/diacrit.c,v
retriev
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know how does copyright law apply to auto-generated programs. Maybe
> debian-legal can offer advice on this.
The answer is "it depends", so let me give a few more details about
the file in question, so that debian-legal knows what we're talking
Hello all,
I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License.
Could you tell me if this :
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/spin/SPIN_public_license.txt
is a free or non-free license?
Please CC me as I am not on the list.
--
Regards,
EddyP
eddyp wrote:
> I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License.
>
> Could you tell me if this :
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/spin/SPIN_public_license.txt
>
> is a free or non-free license?
In general, when requesting that debian-legal review a license, it is
pr
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:05:51AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> dirfd.h is just dirent boilerplate code plus two trivial #if blocks.
> Not worth worrying about, imho. The guts are in dirfd.m4.
> getpagesize.h was factored out of GPL'd code.
> I've added a copyright notice to each of those.
Loo
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>I think the ideal solution would be to change hspell so that it can
>>build outside of the OO.o source tree; as far as I know, it is OK to
>>have some GPLed and some non-free plugins for the same LGPLed program,
>>as long as they are not all distribute
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004, eddyp wrote:
> I am planning to package an application covered by the Spin Public License.
>
> is a free or non-free license?
This license is not DFSG Free, and is most likely not suitable for
inclusion in non-free either.
It was most recently discussed here:
http://people
31 matches
Mail list logo
