Adding back compressed GIF code to cernlib after July 7 -- any objections?

several days from the expiry date due to some real-life obligations I have.) Any objections? N.B. I have always previously removed compressed GIF creation source code from the orig.tar.gz of the cernlib packages distributed by Debian. regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P

Re: Firefox licensing issue

But this sort of major feature needs to be added upstream. If such an interface were added to the Debian package of Firefox, hardly any extension developers would use it as long as it was Debian-specific. [Foxytunes license snipped] regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference [OT]

internetcases.com/library/cases/2005-11-28_wallace_v_fsf.pdf Some more references are available from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff) -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University

Re: GPL v3 Draft

s from people who want to keep it. See the rationale document, section 2.14: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale#SECTION00314 regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key I

Geant4 Software License, version 1.0

EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 8. This license shall terminate with immediate effect and without notice if you fail to comply with any of the terms of this license, or if you institute litigation against any Member or Copyright Holder of the Geant4 Collaboration with reg

krb5 license export clause

those three words? Thanks in advance, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 Copyright Notice and Legal Administrivia

Re: Eterm license violation and non-free

ask about the status of the problem. Sorry this probably wasn't what you wanted to hear... -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 --

Is no-advertising clause GPL-compatible?

Hi, I am working on packaging Cernlib, a set of high-energy physics tools and libraries written for the CERN laboratories, under the sponsorship of Bas Zoetekouw. According to CERN, they have put Cernlib under the GPL. However, there are still a lot of source code files that have their own lice

License of ROOT: acceptable for non-free?

Hi all, I am interested in packaging the ROOT analysis software [1]. The license is available here [2] and reads as follows: - (start license) The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyr

Re: License of ROOT: acceptable for non-free?

Thanks to everyone who provided comments. I've sent a polite email detailing some of the licensing issues upstream. The person who does the Debian packaging for ROOT upstream (Christian Holm Christensen) has said to me by email that he would like to ITP ROOT for Debian, so I will not be filing a

Question about freeness of XyMTeX license

..." be considered a grant of permission? If so, my understanding is that the restrictions in option (2) are permissible under the DFSG's "Integrity of the author's source code", correct? Thanks, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: htt

Question about freeness of XyMTeX license [2nd try]

Hi debian-legal folks, Guess no one saw this or cared to comment the first time I sent it. Could people let me know their opinions on the license below and its suitability for inclusion in main (or non-free, if not acceptable for main)? Thanks! On 04/15/2005 09:17 AM, Kevin B. McCarty wrote

Re: MPlayer revisited

olated by MPlayer, one would surely uncover the presence of the same patents in code already in Debian -- the already-mentioned Xine, Avifile, etc. regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University

Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP: mozilla-foxyproxy

then be upon upstream to prove that they were lying about what was their preferred form of modification? Given that, I'm not sure a judge would be very sympathetic to upstream's case ;-) best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.

Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP:mozilla-foxyproxy

ion. My main concern in the particular case of mozilla-foxyproxy would be (as someone else mentioned) that comments in the code may have also been stripped to save space. I would consider redistribution of such comment-stripped code to be a violation of the GPL in spirit as well as in lett

Re: GPLed software with no true source. Was: Bug#402650: ITP:mozilla-foxyproxy

Ben Finney wrote: > "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> personally (IANAL) I'd consider whitespace stripping to be a >> non-issue. After a change that is trivial for any downstream >> recipient of the code to make (running the afore-menti