Hello,
Noah Slater has offered to make a debian package from some of my
software, but I'm having trouble choosing a DFSG compatible license. I
was wondering if debian-legal could help.
I'm looking for a permissive license, of the Modified BSD or MIT
variety, but I'd like for the copyright notices
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:55:12 + Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> Hello,
Hi!
>
> Noah Slater has offered to make a debian package from some of my
> software, but I'm having trouble choosing a DFSG compatible license. I
> was wondering if debian-legal could help.
I would be happy to help.
>
> I'm lo
"Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Noah Slater has offered to make a debian package from some of my
> software, but I'm having trouble choosing a DFSG compatible license.
Thanks for your desire to contribute, and for your effort in gathering
information before choosing license terms f
Ben Finney wrote:
> I hope I've explained above that it's not the *license* that does
> this, but copyright law itself. You, as copyright holder in your work,
> are free to choose license terms and put an appropriate copyright
> notice in your files when you distribute them. If you grant permission
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > If you grant permission to redistribute at all, it's copyright law
> > that requires [the copyright notice] to be included in any
> > redistributions of that work until you explicitly give permission
> > to the contrary.
>
> On
On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My usual recommendation for these needs is the Expat license
Which is indeed too long, even though James Clark is crazy-cool.
> Writing new licenses is in general strongly recommended against
Yeah, I understand. But it proved
On 29/12/2007, Sylvestre Ledru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:20:14 -0600, "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Does French law define "intellectual property"? What does it define it to
> > be?
>
> Of course, our law defines what is an "intellectual pr
Ben Finney wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One case where this could become problematic is when permission is
> > granted to create derivative works. If the derivative work can be
> > distributed in binary-only form, then the copyright notices in the
> > source code becom
On Dec 30, 2007 10:58 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm not sure I take your meaning in "copyright notices" being
> "protected". Copyright law protects any creative work (with
> jurisdiction-specific exceptions), not the legal notice on that
> work.
The AFL 3.0, for example, states:
'This Academic Fre
Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
> A lot of other local laws don't define "intellectual property", but
> people use the term anyways as if it were legally defined. It's sad
> news to see that France does and that other laws are also doing it.
> :-(
Why do you think it's necessary for a law to define
On 30/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
> > A lot of other local laws don't define "intellectual property", but
> > people use the term anyways as if it were legally defined. It's sad
> > news to see that France does and that other laws are also
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:12:00 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > One case where this could become problematic is when permission is
> > > granted to create derivative works. If the derivative work can be
> > > distributed in bi
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:57:42 + Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > b) license proliferation is bad
>
> Whilst that's very true, and I would prefer there to be far fewer
> licenses than there are currently, my argument was that
On Dec 30, 2007 4:59 PM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't take offense for this, but I think that your needs are
> not so critical that they cannot be bent a little to be satisfied by an
> existing license.
Well several licenses have parts of what I need, but there's no
li
On Dec 30, 2007 5:51 PM, Sean B. Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A = Allows short statement of application
> B = Preserves copyright statements and notices
> C = Allows distribution without full license text
> D = License is or may be fixed to exclude later versions
And here's the table augme
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:12:00 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > I'd argue it is a translation and therefore a derivative work.
>
> I was under the impression that a "mechanical" (i.e.: automated, without
> any new creative input from the compiler user) translation didn't cr
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I modify it (say to remove the capability of getting source code) and run it
> on my own computer, allowing remote users to interact with it. Assuming the
> output sent to the users is *not* a derived work (e.g. no AGPLv3 HTML
> templates, etc),
John Halton wrote:
> Out of interest, is there any reason why the developers of Parrot have
> adopted this licence rather than the GPL, given that the code (with
> trivial modifications) can be relicensed under the GPL anyway?
The usual variety of reasons. Partly historical. Partly for greater
c
Sean B. Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> The only two problems with the CDDL from my perspective are [...]
I don't know whether the problems with the CDDL that 1. it does not
follow the DFSG if there are active patents on the Covered Software;
2. Matthew Garrett's comment at
http://lists.
"Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Writing new licenses is in general strongly recommended against
>
> Yeah, I understand. But it proved to be a pretty good way to start a
> conversation, and I was interested to s
Sean, please follow the Debian mailing list guidelines
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>; in
particular, please don't send personal copies of messages also sent to
the list unless they're explicitly requested.
"Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 30, 2007 10:58 A
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>
>> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way:
>>
>> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer to
>> the versioned GPL file in /usr/share/common-licens
22 matches
Mail list logo
