On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Crowther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I run Debian and I recently wrote a small Python program. However,
> while I do maintain it, I have placed it in the public domain. I read
> the Debian policy manual. After asking for more information about
> licensing issues and
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:45 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD software
> > isn't) and then without a license, because that gives us almost no
> > r
ory. I think that the Sun RPC code is
non-free, and I want an opinion from debian-legal.
> At Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:28:48 +1000,
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > This bug should be closed.
>
> OK, I've closed now.
>
> Regards,
> -- gotom
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTE
as the
encryption algorithm CAST-128 [0], are available for use under DFSG-free
terms, and so may be placed in main, assuming the software implementing
them is also DFSG-free.
> [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package.en.html
[0] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2144.txt
--
learns of any third party claim
> > that any disposition of Covered Code and/or functionality wholly or
> > partially infringes the third party's intellectual property rights,
> > Recipient will promptly notify SGI of such claim.
This fails the Desert Island test. This i
ian system
in , which is complete copy of GPL
version 2. If you do not use Debian, you can find a copy at the GNU
Project's web site: <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undo
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
> > accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free.
>
> I ha
nd the software could have
a DFSG-free license. At least upstream has shown some willingness to
change the license at some point, unlike other developers of software.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
D]
> Worldwide Web: www.arrl.org/lotw
>
> This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
> individuals on behalf of the ARRL. More information on the "Logbook of
> The World" project and the ARRL is available from the ARRL Web site at
> www.arrl.org/lotw.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
AL DAMAGES
>ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING, BUT
>NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF
>USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
>ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
>TORT, EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
>POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
This is fine.
-END LICENSE-
IANAL; TINLA; IANADD.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
n the whole work must be distributed under the
GPL. Unfortunately, this license is incompatible with the GPL;
therefore, we cannot distribute it at all. If you cannot resolve this
issue with upstream, you should file a bug on ftp.debian.org requesting
its removal.
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204684
[0] See the archives for details.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ght notice for easier
identification within third-party archives.
Copyright (C) [] [name of copyright owner]
Licensed under the Apache TCK License, Version 1.0 (the "License")
as the Technology Compatibility Kit for the following specification:
[ Widget Interface, revision 5.1
<http://www.example.com/specs/widget/5.1/> ]
You may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/tck-license-1.0.txt
Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express
or implied. See the License for the specific language governing
permissions and limitations under the License.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
BIG NOTICE: None of these licenses are official. They are all drafts.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:03:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
> comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
> not.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:22:39PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
>
> > I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
>
> Will you please clarify why??
I'm assuming you meant the copyrig
but rather the
aggressiveness of the patent holder. The LZW patent holder, Unisys, is
very aggressive and their patent still threatens a large number of
countries.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ing
> was deemed unclear: "You must make it trivially easy for recipients
> to copy and modify the work."
This does seem to be ambiguous.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
p proper copyright file]
You forgot where the upstream source was obtained, although you might
have included that in the [...].
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e's door battered in by the
cops, one shouldn't use it. That said, it doesn't meet the standard set
out above: the use of the install-css.sh file itself does not break a
law, even though the use of the resulting download might. While this is
nitpicking, this is the standard set out
/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200312/msg00188.html
> [2] - I've chatted with the upstream author and he will be changing this
> to GPL in the next release.
>
> --
> Jamin W. Collins
>
> Remember, root always has a loaded gun. Don't run around with it unless
> you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> any specific names in mind?
Well, I've found a list of choices [0] [1] [2]. The lists are from the
Berkeley Unified School District, so I assume they're in Berkeley.
[0] http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/OS/zones/n.html
[1] http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/OS/zones/f.html
[2] http://www.be
r distribution would conflict with other project policies.
Sorry.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
general use is not
compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
That being said, the maintainer should get a move on and remove the
patch so that the fonts look right.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
AL DAMAGE ("HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES"). THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
> SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR
> HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES.
This disclaimer is much better. I believe the last one prohibited use in
nuclear facilities. This one merely states that it is "NOT INTENDED FOR
USE IN" such systems.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a
copyright (which isn't really public domain) but it can't have a patent
or usage restrictions. You may have some trouble uploading, though;
klecker doesn't seem to be responding, at least to me.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:47:45PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:14:30PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > non-US/non-free. crypto-in-main is crypto-in-*main*, not
> > crypto-in-non-free. That's part of the reason why we still have non-US.
>
can be ignored and patents that we care about.
Active enforcement. Of course, if the patents are enforced, but are
allowed to be practiced under a DFSG-free license, then that's
different.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
f the United States Government (of which FIPS 180-1 is one)
are ineligible for copyright and are explicitly public domain.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ecked the
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses
> and they consider it free if none of the part VI optional clauses are
> excercised.
It is free under the same conditions (no optional clauses).
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 19:23 +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>I would like to know what do you guys think about the CDDL license
>[1]. Does it meet with the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
First of all, please paste the entire license in the mail, so that if
people use thin
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
> certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR
> to change the wording s/
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 20:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[argument of program vs. software]
> > If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing
On Sunday 23 October 2005 08:38, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> > [CC'ed debian-legal, they can probably give a more detailed and
> > informed analysis of the proposed license]
>
> Done, please forware appropriate information as needed.
[snip license analysis]
RIPEMD-160 is a
e other way, too. But they must at least offer a DFSG-free license.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Running on GNU/kFreeBSD; i686-pc-kfreebsd-gnu
Support alternative kernels in Debian!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 24 November 2005 20:42, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an example:
>
> "This program is licensed under the GPL...etcetc..
>
> If your name is Jim then sections 3a and 3b do not apply."
>
> is LESS restrictive than just the
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:35 +0400, olive wrote:
> Once again if a license clearly fail the DFSG I will never advocate to
> include it. But there are a lot of case where this is not the case and I
> think people claim that the license violates the DFSG just because they
> do no like it. There is
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying.
I have removed the text that you quoted.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote:
> The social contract say also "We will never make the system require the
> use of a non-free component". It is reasonable to think that
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:02 +0400, olive wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Everything is always possible. Even understanding how a program works
> without source by disassembling it. If a free program depends on an
> non-free library you can reimplement the free library.
ITYM &
[For -legal people, the license is attached.]
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:01 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:20:14AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Official packages of Sun Java are now available from the non-free
> > section of Debian unstable, thanks to Sun releas
efonts.com/fontfiles/afonts4.htm
http://lager.dyndns.org/GnuMICR/download/latest/
(GPL'd, see README)
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://decoy.wox.org/~bmc> 0x560553E7
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?
pgp0CKqEC6GJ2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rated. If we do this, we
have covered ourselves. Otherwise, we should remove the ECC code into
non-US/non-free.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://decoy.wox.org/~bmc> 0x560553E7
Fifty flippant frogs
Walked by on flippered feet
And with their slime they made the time
Unnaturally fleet.
pgpPalIeWuDiu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
warranty. Well, you can, but you do not have the option of saying, "If
you do not accept the fact there is no warranty, you cannot use the
program", as in the GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, or other licenses.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unt
wasn't turned down because of this.
>
> Should this go to non-free or free?
This is free. It's the 4-clause BSD license. It is, however,
GPL-incompatible, so if you're linking GPL software with it, that's not
ok. I'm sure you know the drill. It's the same with Op
would be free (myself included).
IANAL, IANADD.
[0] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we m
export-laws clause in the license originally
> > certified by OSI, but that must have been removed since.
>
> Yup, that was a major screw-up on our part. It's since been repaired
> by the replacement of it by the license you see now.
That discriminated against peop
e many people who disagree with
> > his calculus.
>
> Indeed, and nobody is suggesting that Richard's word be accepted as
> gospel. I've written to the FSF's board about the FDL. Have you? On
> the other hand, I notice that the FDL'd glibc-doc, at least, is sti
NDERLYING TECHNOLOGY OR PRODUCT COULD LEAD DIRECTLY
> TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
> ("HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES"). LICENSOR SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS
> OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES. USER WILL NOT
> KNOWI
gt; and have to automate the generation of the TrueType fonts.
It really doesn't matter to me how you do it. I don't know if pfaedit
can create ttf files from the command line, though.
> > As well, the debian/copyright notice does not actually specify
> > the correct copy
prohibited to even
create an info document from GFDL'd texinfo source. See #183860.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all." --Douglas Adams
pgp1MByC1oaVL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e license of the original software." GPL 2c passes muster only
because it displays license material. Even that is controversial on this
list. debian-legal has consistently held that license material can be
immutable and still free. I have never seen debian-legal say that
advertisements
program would go in
non-free. DFSG 8 prohibits Debian-specific licenses. *But that aside*,
that license is free.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all." --Douglas Adams
pgpAKWA9D9cuN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
time, but I'm
willing to help where I can. I'm also not a DD, so I'm not going to
attempt a second.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see i
if not, write to the Free
.\" Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111,
.\" USA.
The second paragraph is what I am most concerned about. Is it possible
to combine a work that is pure GPL and a work that is GPL with this
"interpretation clause"?
e. I'm sorry if RMS will be
unhappy, but the DFSG does not make exceptions if people are unhappy.
Documentation *is* software, and therefore its licenses must follow the
DFSG; I thought we just decided that.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unt
er, it's difficult if not impossible to prove that any given stream
of bits is not software. So the only non-free things we can include are
proven non-software, like ham sandwiches or desks.
I will pay a cash reward to the first person who modifies apt to make it
possible to download a de
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
>RFC 1884 (December 1995)
>RFC 2373 (July 1998)
>RFC 3515 (August 2003)
^^^
Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
meant April 2003?
--
ors are dead;
> Jon Postel, for example, is the author of many early RFCs).
At least some early RFCs are free. You can see the bug on doc-rfc, which
*still* hasn't been closed, and is *still* in main.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthi
n the freeness
of the license.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
after all." --Douglas Adams
pgp73AnYjahoo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
uldn't it be under the UCB BSD license?
Yes, they should. And the third clause of the license should be patched
out. File a bug.
--
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
to grapple with the ineffab
cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered
> + by patent issues.
Things that belong in non-US, but are patent-encumbered or otherwise
fail to meet the DFSG for any reason belong in non-US/non-free. This
includes things that would be eligible for the crypto-in-main trans
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > > The thread
> > >
> > >
> > > http://lists.deb
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:16:30AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > > &g
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:45:39AM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 06:46:15PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Patented software does not have to be patent-encumbered (for example, we
> > have many programs and libraries in both main and non-US/main that u
hat is licensed under any version
of the GNU Free Documentation License (including draft versions) is
hereby licensed under the GNU General Public License, as published by
the Free Software Foundation, version 2 only. That should take care of
the GFDL'd manpage that I submitted to fix a bug.
U are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those
that have stronger ties to Debian. The case might be that people who
disagree with the statement "the GFDL is non-free" might not be saying
anything and they might actually constitute the majority. I feel this an
unlikely possibili
st be extirpated.
> I'm not a reader of debian-legal. I really would prefer if I just can
> get a "verdict" after your discussion, but it's probably better if you
> would Cc me on replies.
Thank you for including a proper Mail-Followup-To:. That's the best way
to get
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 09:29 +0100, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to inform you, that the current source of your VCG
> package is based on illegal code. James Michael DuPont started
> a GNUVcg project on the GNU Savannah Server:
>
>http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/vcgdotgnu
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 18:43 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
> > Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
> > version 1 or later[2]. Because the code
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 17:55 +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> [Please Cc: me when replying]
Done.
> The relevant US law says (title 17, chapter 1, Â 105):
>
>Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work
>of the United States Government, but the United States Government
>
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 16:32 +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:50:36AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> >
> > >Sound free to me, since not the output of the library is required to
> > >confirm to it, but the interface which generates the input for the
>
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:57 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
> >> persons or groups". This is an unreasonable interpretation of the
> >> original meaning of DFSG.5.
> >I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an un
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 19:05 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote:
> Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly
> incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that
> would still protect source-code redistribution on line. Basically, I'm
> trying to write a
re, please post questions about copyright and licenses to -legal,
where the regulars are well versed.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwa
low up there.
- Thou shalt use and dispense freely without other restrictions.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4
) are completely functional
without any firmware at all. Certain extra features, like TCP Segment
Offloading (TSO), are enabled by the firmware, but these features are
not required for basic functionality.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 |
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:41:12 +
"brian m. carlson" wrote:
[CC'd -legal as well; you probably want to follow up there.]
I don't need to be CC'd, thanks. M-F-T set accordingly.
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at
is not compatible with the GPLv2. It is an additional restriction.
I don't believe this is a problem with the GPLv3, but if you use it
under the GPLv3 then you cannot link it with GPLv2 applications.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crusty
wise legal) use of that name
that this license pretends to restrict.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ve pointed out.
Personally, I think the easiest and best solution is simply to stick
with Berkeley DB 5.3. It avoids all the pain of relicensing and the
inevitable licensing bugs that *will* show up. Not to mention that some
upstreams will be unamused at Oracle's shenanigans and won't want t
78 matches
Mail list logo
