On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:17:18PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> I am copying debian-legal on this mail. Please include me on any
> replies, as I am not subscribed to that list.
I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, too.
Please Cc me on replies.
Below are my opinions on this issue
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Package: libdvdread3
> > Version: 0.9.4-3
> > Severity: critical
>
> > The debconf note says:
>
> > <-- snip -->
>
> > Many DVDs use css. To pl
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:37:38PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:50:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Package: libdvdread3
> > &
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:42:43AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>...
> However if you copy copy-protected CD foo with program bar at home you
> won't be persecuted by criminal law, but the manufacturar might start
> private action against you, claiming compensation.
>
> Now try to apply the latte
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I think this is DFSG-free and can go to main.
>
> Would you care to justify that remark? You could start by telling us
> how it doesn't conflict with sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the DFSG. (Have
> you _read_ t
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
>...
> plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
> have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
> at all, and netscape has been deaf to my inquiries.
>...
plugger is under the GPL but linked w
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> severity 65794 normal
> severity 65796 normal
> severity 65797 normal
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:27:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > freeamp is a MP3 decoder. Decoding of MP3s is patented.
> >
> >
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
>
> non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
licenced under the GPL that is threate
Hi,
could someone please tell me if this patch:
- contains any code with legal problems (e.g. patents)?
- forces the package to go to non-US?
If none of the above is true I'll apply this patch to the Debian
util-linux package.
Thanks in advance for your answers
Adrian
PS: Please Cc me because I
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> [I'm probably repeating myself, but this is for the benefit of debian-legal
> readers and may help to shorten discussion]
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 16:10:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > could someone please tell me if thi
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Andrew Lau wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:22:45PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > config-scripts/cups-openssl.m4 in the cupsys source package contains the
> > autoconf macro cupsys uses for this purpose.
>
> Hey Adrian,
Hi Andrew,
> I just
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
> Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver,
> like they did with tg3 and others.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
> > >
> > > http://lists.debian.or
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On M
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>...
> The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily muster
> the ressources to fight of a legal case, even one which is a dubious one,
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > legal risks than commercial distributions, can you explain why Debia
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
&g
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Debian was at least consistent.
> >
> > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> > than RedHat?
>
>
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>...
> And all have problems:
>
> package | danger
> -+--
> kernel-image*| kernel-source* update replaces source
> | rebuild differs
> |
Hi,
sorry if it's a FAQ, but I didn't find a place where it stands
explicitely: Is the old BSD licence (with the advertising clause) DFSG
compliant? I did read the Debian Social Contract and the DFSG and I
didn't find any reason why it shouldn't, or did I miss something?
Thanks,
Adrian
--
A "No
On 10 Apr 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > sorry if it's a FAQ, but I didn't find a place where it stands
> > explicitely: Is the old BSD licence (with the advertising clause) DFSG
> > compliant? I did read the Debian Social Contract and the DFSG and I
> > didn't find any reason why it should
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>...
> One part that I don't like about the new license[1] is the following
> paragraph (1.b.iii):
>
> [you may modify and distribute the source only iff you]
>provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
>such modificati
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think this is DFSG-free and can go to main.
>
> I don't. WHat if Anonymizer Inc. goes out of business? All of a sudden
> everyone loses the right to modify and distribute the source code.
That's right.
The oother question is: Is it DFSG-free i
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
- both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in
/usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising
clause in its exact wording
Does OpenSS
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
> > non-free
>
> No.
Ah, OK.
Could someone update http://wiki.de
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:36:29PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and
> > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly?
> >
> > Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:37:49PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >> The libcurl case might be easy to resolve, but I don't know anything
> > >> about the libtorrent-rasterbar.
> > >>
> > >> It might be required that y
Package: funny-manpages
Version: 1.3-5
Severity: serious
The contents of /usr/share/doc/funny-manpages/copyright does
not at all look as if the package would be DFSG-free:
<-- snip -->
This package was debianized by Pawel Wiecek co...@pwr.wroc.pl on
Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:10:17 +0100.
This set o
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>...
> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be used
> to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
> prior written permission.
>
> I'm not 100% certain that bundling d
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> >>...
> >> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Nicholas,
>...
> Did you read the text at that link?
yes.
> "it *does* cause practical
> problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL [emphasis mine]"
DFSG free code does not have to be GPL compatible.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 03:36:04PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:33:32 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>...
> Well, as far as I can say, the 4-clause BSD license is considered
> acceptable for Debian main.
> It is also [considered] a free software license by the FSF, althoug
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> severity 65794 normal
> severity 65796 normal
> severity 65797 normal
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:27:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > freeamp is a MP3 decoder. Decoding of MP3s is patented.
> >
> >
36 matches
Mail list logo
