Re: distributing precompiled binaries

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF > > *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for > > Debian. > > > The same needs to be true of any binary in Debian, AIUI.

Re: Packaging cluedome - copyright problems?

Tristan Greaves wrote: > I'm taking a look at packaging the game Cluedome: http://www.cluedome.com/ > > I'm wondering if there are any copyright concerns. The game advertises itself > as a clone, and the source ships with an example game rules rule and image -- > which match that of the board cam

Re: Packaging cluedome - copyright problems?

MJ Ray wrote: Tristan Greaves wrote: I'm taking a look at packaging the game Cluedome: http://www.cluedome.com/ I'm wondering if there are any copyright concerns. The game advertises itself as a clone, and the source ships with an example game rules rule and image -- which match that of the b

Re: FLTK License

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] > What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual > exceptions, assuming that "identify their use of FLTK" is in the > LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? I cannot find any require

Judgement about the EUPL

Dear debian-legal, was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already? Is there something in it that concerns acceptability and GPL compatibility (which was explictly intended) like choice of venue? Kind regards, Philipp Kern [1] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl/ -- PDF-only as it looks but well. -- .

Re: Judgement about the EUPL

EUPL v1.1 full text: European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1 Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007 Preamble The attached "European Union Public Licence" ("EUPL") has been elaborated in the framework of IDABC, a European Communi

GFDL 1.1 or later

Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license,

Re: GFDL 1.1 or later

In message <20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr>, Samuel Thibault writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyri

Re: Creative Commons CC0

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:51:31 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: [...] > The hope is that there would be few enough CC > licenses that most people would know the basic terms well enough that they > never really need to look them up, but people do need internet access to > look them up the first time, as wel

Re: issues with the AGPL

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote: [...] > 0) Conflict with the The Free Software Definition: > > > The AGPL is in direct conflicts with the two paragraphs below: I don't think the AGPLv3 actually is in conflict with what the

Re: distributing precompiled binaries

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] > I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree. > https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416 > doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt. > Can it not be rebuilt from those source

Re: Zimbra and Yahoo Public License

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:16:12 +0100 (CET) Cedric Fachinetti wrote: [...] > Yahoo! Public License, Version 1.1 (YPL) [...] > • 6.2 - In the event You violate the terms of this Agreement, > Yahoo! may terminate this Agreement. This seems to be the only significant change with respect to ver

Re: distributing precompiled binaries

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 08:55:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF > > > *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for > > > Debia