Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields
> of endeavor, but we have never considered "the right to
> distribute this free software in a non-free fashion" a field of
> endeavor.
I'm not convinced that using DRM/DRRT/"technical measures" is
necessa
right minimalist words to express it.
I would recommend 'group' but I am not sure that I understand the aim.
[...]
> Le 20 mars 06 =E0 03:39, MJ Ray a =E9crit :
> > You'd be surprised. Some people print this stuff on t-shirts. Dropping
> > that and "programming&qu
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This implies that a document with no invariant sections, but with
> one-sentence front- and back-cover sections does not meet the DFSG?
> Is that Debian's position?
Debian's position is:
: that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts,
: A
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
> a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited.
> If free parallel distribution is guaranteed to be available,
> relevant
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On the other hand, "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel
> team, based on the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds and others" seems to
> be accurate credit, doesn't it?
It's an arguably accurate description, but strikes me as an arguably
misleading cred
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:28:03 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> > Long term, hosting it yourself under a distributed RCS and using
> > something like DOAP to keep project metadata seems the best bet. If
> > others would like to help document th
> From: Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Bug#353462: ttf-dejavu: license prohibits advertising with
> Bitstream name - description uses them
> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So...
> - is this "advertising" at all
I think that's unclear. I don't think so, bu
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
> > > a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be availabl
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non
> misleading) credit?
"kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel team and others"
> Start from a troublesome license and patch it hard so that it is
> `forced' to meet the DFSG?
I don't
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
>
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have approached the GMP developers both on the GMP list and
> privately. It turns out that the copyright is assigned to FSF so they
> have no authority (or so they claim) to change the license. I was
> advised to contact FSF about it.
Please ask them what
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > > The subject of this sentence is you.
> > >
> > > The subject of this sentence is not "technical measures"
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> hope to be able to convince him to drop the additional restrictions
> (should he be reachable) - but before I do that I'd like to make sure
> that the additional restrictions are in fact a problem, and not only
> just an inconvenience, and which
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
> > for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical
> > measure under the relevant definitions
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
> reminded -legal, there are others[1]. [...]
> [1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Don't trust everything you read so much. That draft summary was
written by a newbie
Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJRay, may we have your comments too? Olivier sent me copies of some
> off-list discussion in which you tend to agree that new license is ok
> for Debian.
Nice to learn that copyright infringement is alive and well(!)
In short, I think it technically meets the
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?No=E8l_K=F6the?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> kolabd was rejected by ftpmaster because of this schema license text
[...]
> The text is the same like the one from core.schema from openldap2.2
That's really strange. How can one include 'Portions' of something
when forbidden to modify it in a
dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Though it maybe feasible to drop older db versions from the next
> release (I do not know if such plans exist), I believe we would still
> need to resolve this in an update to the current stable release
> (sarge).
Aren't documentation bugs sarge-ignore? I'm not s
Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> i've got an ITP pending about kscope, and it seems that there's a problem on
> licences incompatibility:
>
> * from upstream website : [...]
> > KScope (BSD License) dynamically links with KDE (LGPL?), Qt (GPL) and
> > graphviz (CPL). [...]
> > The solution seem
Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Upstream author find a solution :
> The next version of KScope, due shortly, uses 'dot' from the command-line=20
> instead of dynamically linking with graphviz. This should solve all licensi=
> ng problems.
That seems a good solution. Thanks for working on this p
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you explain me why, by using this command line, you makes the
> license ok, and what the difference?
In short, the command line is a published standard interface. If you
use it, the called code is not included in the calling program, whereas
compiling library calls
Michael Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is there any reason
> to keep the ~865 byte header in each file?
The GPL text says:
: It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most
: effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have
: at least the "copyright"
Adriaan Peeters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I found a few references in the archives regarding cc-by-sa, but the
> comments on [1] seem to be outdated, can/will this page be updated with
> comments on the 2.5 version of the licenses?
Most of the comments on [1] still apply. Only the author-purge has cha
Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache
> software under Apache License 1.1 [2]).
[2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like.
I think your ITP License line is incorrect.
> I read debian-legal archives to have information about
dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would classify this as a legal/licensing issue, not a documentation
> issue.
Aren't most documentation licensing bugs sarge-ignore?
--
MJR/slef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> a) a proper license should be decided for the website.
>
>I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
>license.
I suggest using a BSD-style licence as default, but the attached one
is not one
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Of course GPL programs can *open* CC graphics, it's just you cannot
> *distribute* CC graphics with them if you want to be GPL-compatible.
ITYM combine not distribute, as you correctly write below:
> The GPL gives you unlimited permission to run the program
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
> and better than I would expect.
>
> Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better
> way to handle th
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
> > want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
> > manual.
> > Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-fre
"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suppose this is a possibility, but with the current license, this
> shouldn't be possible, though I admit I hadn't thought about it. I doubt,
> however, if this is a real possibility, since who has the means to publish
> paper copies and give them away free?
Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The major question is about replacing java1-runtime, java1-compiler,
> java2-runtime and java2-compiler virtual packages by classpath-jre,
> classpath-jdk for free java implementation and java-jre and java-jdk for
> non-free implementations. More informations on
Marcin Giedz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And this is my question. We now that Debian is Open Community. So from
> commercial point of view there is no organization" which we can make
> an agreement to become Debian certificated training center. But there
> are people responsible for releases, maintaining
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> UCC 2A-124.2: [...] for example, "There is no
> >warranty that the goods will
> >be fit for a particular purpose".
>
> Quite simply the disclamer must be in writing and be conspicuous.
> Conspicuous is the key word there.
Even better, the example is not WRITTEN A
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suspect that this will not be considered a reasonable clause by most
> people on debian-legal. It effectively says "As long as you use Bacula,
> you grant everyone in the world the right to use any or your copyrighted
> work in any GPLed program, and you
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG
> > 9).
>
> How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
> problem
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If Debian is so important to you then why do you stop at saying
> that I am mistaken instead of going on to educate me on a project
> you care so much about?
Some Debian Developers (DDs) are essentially mercenary. Others
are also troubled by the events of debconf
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just
> software, to be DFSG-free? [...]
Debian distributes only software, not hardware or hardcopy.
Of course, this "what is software" debate is exactly why the
DFSG were changed to say work not softwa
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
> Linking:
> Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL,
> or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are
> required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of
> those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietar
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>license agreement; and (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun
>and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities,
>settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
>incurred in connection with any claim, lawsui
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think that DRM-inhibiting licences are possible, but the
s/are/that follow the DFSG are/ #oops!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray a Âcrit :
> [...]
> > A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name.
> > Java is the name of an island and a natural language too.
> > I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way.
>
Max Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But the question is very easy: any lawyer knows there is a big
> difference between
> corpus mysthicum (the artwork/the code) and corpus mechanicum (the
> carrier/the file).
> The copyrightable work is only the artwork/the code!
So, in your language, we require the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] I refer
> to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I
> went through the NM queue. [...]
Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction:
'When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org'
a
Max Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2006/5/23, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
> > in English.
>
> Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical lati
Max Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I said that many latin *juridical* terms are universal: the problem is
> that you don't know the language of the *right*
No, the problem is that you seem to be using a foreign language
to cloud matters which are really very simple. [...]
> You are closed in your li
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While we're at it, there's a different issue in teTeX and TeXLive for
> which I'd like to have some advice from -legal. ukhyphen.tex has now a
> supposedly free license, but it has a broader renaming clause:
Wow, that's arrogant, not only reser
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:41:16 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > Wow, that's arrogant, not only reserving the package's filename
> > (arguably acceptable to ensure integrity) but the names of many
> > possible derivatives/competitor
Anthony Towns
> Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
> a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
> on this mailing list.
I think enough DDs agree that the FAQ with the 'please ignore' label is
irrelevant to make Walter's opinion
Nicolas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would like to avoid the positions of two other projects:
>
> * The Translation Project is asking for a (paper) disclaimer for the GNU
>translations [1] (I find it too restrictive)
This is arguably the safest and is similar to other
Javier SOLA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> It could take the form of a warning message when you upload files...
> "All information submitted will be considered by clicking in ok you..."
I am irritated when applications try to dictate terms to me.
Also, if we effectively give people no choice, we
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy
> statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then be
> interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license.
If Sun believe things from random people that easi
The licence of the C library software seems fine to me. A Copyright
line would be good, but I expect it's in there somewhere.
Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> OPEN DATA LICENSE (GeoIP Standard Edition Database)
[...]
> 2. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning features or
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that
> the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as
> xfonts-utils.
Thanks. I'll correct that.
Often it's not clear to me which package is being discussed, so I
some
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make
> together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together
> official Debian statements. [...]
Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft,
if the news re
Anthony Towns [...]
> And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the
> loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the othe
Anthony Towns
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
>
> That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
> decision making body. That's precisely as it should be,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy
s2.3. It is a
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence
> 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'.
I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The
MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participant
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't say that: it says "If in doubt, send mail to -legal". It
> doesn't say "if the license is doubtful", which is a different matter
> entirely.
We've been told "both James and Jeroen extensive contact with
Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
> > cha
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
> > The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
> > not only for Sun Java.
>
> Right. And w
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, not at all. The text clearly says that we are to idemnify Sun in for
> anything anyone could sue them over while doing something involving "the
> use or distribution of (our) Operating System", except if something
> happened "not under (our) direction or co
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and
> elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where
> these decisions are taken.
Who did that? I must have missed a few posts.
FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful res
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it?
>
> If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need
>
David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Out of interest, if[0] that is saying that "we agree that anything isn't
> Sun's fault isn't Sun's fault" (which is fair enough) then that doesn't
> mention anything about any warranty that we might offer. For the large
> majority of the software we ship, we disc
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problematic kind of trademark clauses is the one that says "you
> > lose your _copyright_ license if you use our trademark in ways we're
> > not happy with".
>
> Why is that any more problematic than the 3-cla
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital
> for reviewing the copyright status of a program, should there be any
> doubt or copyright infringement claims. Programs with an unclear
> copyright situation cannot be considered free, IMHO.
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The GPL v3 is not yet released; the FSF are asking for anyone who has
> concerns to make them known now. [...]
Unfortunately, to make them known, you have to jump through hoops of
being able to use their anybrowser-busting web system, persuade their
reject-all emai
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You've mentioned this on multiple occasions; my offer to populate the
> comment system with any comments that you are unable to make via it
> still stands.
Thank you. I don't recall that. I had hoped FSF would actually fix
their bad processes to give equal opp
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Regardless, a requirement to disclose one's real identity does fail
> the Dissident test and is thus non-free.
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident>
#import
I suspect they do, but I've not found it myself yet.
> I concur that it's not a fe
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I concur that it's not a fee[0].
> > > [0] I do feel that an individual's private information is effectively
> > > a val
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
> lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
> limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
> "last post wins" school of debate. People don't listen
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem
> would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.
On what is that suspicion based?
I disagree. Some of the worst noiseboxes were DDs and some of the
best moderators weren't. Rest
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > It's the comment system which is incapable, not the people.
> > IMO there was no good reason to design some people out of it.
>
> If it's possible to provide the same level of function with an interface
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Well, that's just great for the users who can see the UI without it
> > spewing errors. Was there really no way to offer the same features to
> > everyone in an easily-accessible way?
>
> I don'
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Karl Goetz writes:
> > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-knoppix/2006/06/msg00019.html
> > [2] http://www.truecrypt.org/license.php
[...]
> Overall, this seems like a fairly pointless and dangerous but not
> clearly unfree license; GPLv2 or v2+ with SSL exceptio
Rippit the Ogg Frog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yet VLC (http://www.videolan.org/) both plays and creates AAC files. Is
> this because there are no software patents where it is developed in
> France, because they have a license, or because there is an exception
> for Open Source software?
I don't kn
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked debian-legal:
> Unfortunately John L Allen is unreachible to clarify the license terms of his
> piece of code [3].
>
> Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a copyright
> for
> the code to have it in Public Domain ? [...]
70 yea
dtufs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Poole writes:
> > One sign is the frequent use of alternatives [...]
> In reality [...]
No matter who is correct, I think it is unhelpful to imply
that others are not dealing in reality, especially on matters
of opinion.
My reply is abbreviated because this lic
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 18:21, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 70 years after the death of John L Allen [...]
> > Has anyone asked Northrop Grumman Corporation where he went?
>
> NG is a pretty large and busy corporation ;-) ... whom to ask
al high
ground *after* replying at the same level.
> --- MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this licence seems uncontroversially non-free due
> > to forbidding private use.
>
> You are wrong. Read the section 3.a. It permits you to
> not release source code of yo
I'm puzzled by what looks like a duplicated reply. I reply to
only one.
dtufs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
> > author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
> > enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
>
> The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
>
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> AIUI, the logos are considered trademarks. The "licence" strongly implies
> that Debian does not claim copyright on
> the open use logo, but merely trademark rights. [...]
I disagree. Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest is
an unambiguous claim. The
\"=?UTF-8?Q?Eddy_Petri=C5=9For?=\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1) Are any of the following licenses compatible with the Debian Open
> Use Logo License?
>a) GPL
No.
>b) CC-BY 2.0
>c) CC-BY-SA 2.0
>d) CC-BY-NC 2.0
Yes. These do not follow the DFSG and are obsoleted by 2.5 (which
also do
Jason Spiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is the license pasted below OK?
I don't think so. It seems to contradict itself - resulting in a
possible termination clause. It also requires long-term distribution,
discriminates against some commercial activities and attempts to enforce
patents unrelated to t
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
> License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
> [1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html
I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as you noted) for reasons
similar to the old BSD licence
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?
This is how I think it *might* (as written previously, I'm unsure):
1. what is meant by entering into a separate written license agreement?
2. is it the same licence if it's the original+total donation up
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder
> > > will terminate:
> > > [...]
> > > (c) automatically without notice if You, at a
allan1956 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way; the OSI has approved the CDDL as being complaint with thier
> guidelines, which I beleive are similar to DFSG, so inclusion of the
> FAR/DFAR clause doesn't seem to be a problem.
The failed Open Source Initiative uses a definition, not guidelines,
and se
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * MJ Ray:
> > of clauses 4 (automatic donation to upstream),
> [...] You retain your exploitation rights, you only
> grant upstream a free license. This is just a form of copyleft, only
> that the source license is granted to upst
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
> compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
> the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
> also fail DFSG [...]
I think the MPL is an unsett
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -legal,
> Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at:
> http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
> this will serve as a future reference as well
In general, please quote licence texts inline for ease of commentary.
However, in this case, please ch
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, in that sense most other software licenses cover documentation,
> e.g. the GPL - that was the main point of my statement. But I see no
> license that was specifically designed and worded to apply to
> "documentation but not programs", as
rather difficult to discuss things without knowing what they are. Even
then, it seems like it wasn't totally consensual about the problem.
> MJ Ray said, without anyone contradicting that: [...]
I wouldn't read much into that. On my screen, no-one besides you replied
at all.
>
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As you can see the facts from the web page:
> http://www.linux-magazin.de/Produkte/Bestellen/lm_04_06_dvd.html
> things can be terribly misleading:
>
> 1. You can see "DVD-ausgabe mit Debian Sarge".
> There is *no* "Spezial" or "Unofficial" wording on t
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> current policy on that sort of license is.
Accepted but unpopular.
> Plus, it's got some other wording -- is
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Accepted but unpopular.
>
> This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would
> be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow
> th
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing
> their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as
> arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian.
Huh? Please go learn who are the official arbiters of BCFG licen
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted: [...]
> 3.3. Rights Granted by Contributors to IETF Trust
>
> To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
> protected by copyright or other rights of authorship, the
> Contributor [...] grant a
> perpetual,
701 - 800 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
