Hi everyone,
I was reviewing the status of #238245 ("Debian web site is licensed under the
OPL which is not considered DFSG-free") and see that there have been no
actions since October last year and no discussion at debian-www.
In summary: The web pages license content should be changed from th
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> >I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
> >license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation license [3] and
> >explicitely mentions translations. In our case (the website) the
> >'
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 01:03:19AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I agree that the GNU GPL v2 would be a perfectly reasonable choice for
> the Debian website.
> Several other GPLv2-compatible licenses are good choices too, however.
I'd rather use a simpler license for text content it is more under
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:01:40AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Do you think it would be worth doing the licence change process for the
> website and the Release Notes at the same time? I would guess there's
> probably quite a bit of overlap for authors and translators between the
> two.
IMHO,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A
> custom license is not something that we want to write, and especially
> not without serious th
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:22:53AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> > license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 06:40:11AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The only change I made to it was substituting "FreeBSD Documentation
> > Project" for "Debian Project".
>
> You've sent two totally different licenses to the list so far; I was
> refering specifically to the license which was attac
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:47:53PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
>
> > Copyright 1997-2006 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. All rights
> > reserved.
>
> Is this correct? Have all contributors assigned copyright to SPI?
Contri
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 12:08:50AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >Copyright 1997-2006 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. All rights
> reserved.
> ...
>
> You can't do this. You just took a copyrighted work (the FreeBSD
> Documentation License), put a different organization's copyright not
ee software,
however, it does provide resources for it. So please do not imply with
this mail that we would like to force a license change (even if we
prefered free software), we just feel that the license should be uniform
in all the package.
Best regards
Javier Fer
I was wondering if the license developed by IBM for its developerWorks
site, named the Common Public License
(http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license-cpl.html)
is DFSG compliant.
If I read it it seems OK form me but I do get lost in the legalese...
The reason for this quest
(please CC: since I'm not in the list)
I understand that crack's [1] license (adjointed) is free, however, I'm
surprised its not in Debian yet (whileas john is). I just wanted to check
before packaging it (there's an ITP #82613 but it's almost 2 years ago),
since it sounds DFSG-compatible to me.
(BTW, CC: me since I'm not subscribed to either lists)
Thus spoke Henning Makholm:
>If it's anything like Danish trademark law, there ought to be a
>possibility of challenging the trademark registration (though there
>may be out-of-pocket expenses, hence steps 1-4). I assume that
>somebody has mar
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:20:05AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > The give away here may be problematic, however see below:
> > > 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
> > > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package.
> > > YOU MA
(Note: I'm sending this to debian-legal in case somebody wants to jump into
this discussion and shed some light)
(Some background: ldp-es-22103-7 which fixes RC bugs, was not
accepted in the archive due to the license of the original work, not
of the translations, which is the only documenta
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:02:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Note that translations do not share the same copyright as the original
> > works.
>
> So what?
That if there is a file stating the copyright of the original
work that's moot.
>
> [...]
>
> > In this case (this pa
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > Iff the author authorised a
> > translation, the translation *can* be published under a different
> > license (DFSG fre
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> > wrote:
> > > Iff the author authorised a
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:17:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> Do you mean that it's the *original* work that's under a non-free
> license and the *translators* have havd GPL'ed their translation?
Yes.
>
> *IF* that is the case, neither the original nor the translation can be
> in
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:22:57PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other
>alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as
>original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original
>work.
>
> Their ow
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:11:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2.- GULP has a non-DFSG license (this I failed to see).
>
> So you agree that there is a problem?
Yes. I'm going to remove the translation.
> > . If the GULP translators changed the license to be DFSG-free, would the
>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:02:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > May I remark the phrase "The copyright in such work is
> > independent of (...) any copyright protection in the p
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:21:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> From the posted link, Spanish law seems consistent with copyright law as
> I'm familiar with it here:
>
> Artículo 11. Obras derivadas.
(..)
> This is the familiar definition of a derived work. "without prejudicing
> the right
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:38:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I must concede that this interpretation appears to be correct under
> Spanish law, though it's inconsistent with my understanding of US law.
> Still, I'm not sure how much that helps us at the international level,
> especially sin
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:51:50AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No it doesn't.
> > The original copyright applies to the original work.
> > The translation's copyright app
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:58:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Show me where the international law says so.
>
> That has been pointed out several times: The Berne Convention (Paris
> text 1971, English version), article 2, section 3:
Yes. I did point it out.
>
> | (3) Translations,
(first off, I'm not in debian-legal, Cc: me please)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:17:16PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Colin" == Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Colin> I don't see how they can prevent a clean-room competing
> Colin> implementation without software patents
(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever
debian-legal starts discussing documentation licenses. It could be nice,
if only to ask for opinio
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you
> > are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions
> > in an article)
>
> Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basi
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> > documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> > writing; specifically, _
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> >>Forking a project is not the same as putting words in my mouth I
> >> didn't say and that's what Invariant sections are for.
>
> It's no
Many of you are already aware (me included but I have not participated/read all
the relevant threads) that this horse might have been beaten to death in as many
threads over the years. However there is not a single place that summarises all
this information and shows the "official" (Debian's as o
(please CC: as I'm not on the list)
I was considering packaging Titan (since it's a good complement to Tiger
and I believe the authors have done a good job with this tool). It was
previously published it under a non-free license (you had to give many to
a charity they chose if you made a profit wi
I was thinking on packaging honeyd [1] a small daemon to simulate servers
and create a virtual honeynet. I'm, however, not completely sure the license
is DFSG-free.
License follows:
/*
* Copyright 2002 Niels Provos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in sourc
(please keep me in Cc: as I'm not in the list)
I was considering packaging T.Rex firewall for Debian but I'm not totally
sure of several facts, one of the caveats is its current license :"The
Livermore Public License (LPL), an Open Source License" which is QPL-based.
It seems free to me, but I wou
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:45:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I strongly object to this unless you're willing to mark the very
> section[1] you describe as motivating your proposal as "_very_ draft".
> I say this because it is *not* representative of current consensus on
> debian-legal.
Noti
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:39:51PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> [I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.]
> [This is not really debian-devel issue yet. So removed from Reply-To:]
>
> Thanks Branden for reminding us about important insights to the licensing
> issues as below. W
37 matches
Mail list logo
