Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* Kern Sibbald: > Problems of mismatched licenses apparently occur when forming and > distributing a "mixed" binary program or when mixing different > licenced source code in the same file and distributing it. As far > as I know Bacula 2.4.x does not mix source code with different > licenses in t

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* MJ Ray: > Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as > fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try > to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to > be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyers and

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* Luke Faraone: > Would retitling the package "carol" or "wonderland" be sufficient to > make the package DFSG-free? There is ample precedent that the license is DFSG-compliant as such. If you want to be completely sure, you could ask the copyright holder if it is acceptable to include it in Debi

Re: RFC: licence of ITP: s3sync-ruby

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* MJ Ray: > 3. is the licence any obstacle to meeting DFSG? It doesn't mention the act of running the program or using it. Or does this activity fall under "display"? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* Anthony W. Youngman: > Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode? Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode? > Maybe I'm being dense, but in the case of something like a bash > script, the distributor is distributing source therefore the licence > of the interpreter is irre

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-10 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <871vvbv5st@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes * Anthony W. Youngman: Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode? Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode? I meant bytecode - along the lines of "basic is interpreted code, but sometimes it's pre-pr

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* Anthony W. Youngman: >>The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, "further >>restrictions" are not allowed. So having source code is not >>sufficient for compliance. > > Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't have the power to change the > licence, so if I receive source-code