Hi,
How can I handle something like this?
> > I just wanted to know under which license is it released,
> > because I cannot find any doc on that.
> Pang 1.20 has no licence. It's totally free to use, and the
> source code are available to anyone who want to begin coding
> a game for example.
Ma
Hi again,
Upstream has agreed to add a license file to the tgz archive:
"""
This program is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with
the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if you
port the game on another platform or use part of the source code.
Hi,
If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement
clause] and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the files?
Are there examples of something like this in the archive?
Thanks a lot,
Miry
PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :)
2007/5/11, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi! :)
Thanks for your reply :)
What do you mean by "announcement clause"?]
Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)?
See[1] for more information about the OAC.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Yep, I mean
--- Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to
> the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies...
I think that's quite complex to decide on a single-game basis, as that
decision might affect most of other
Hi,
I want to package some games who happen to be remakes of older 8-bit games:
http://www.masoftware.es/
I've already talked to upstream and they're licensing them under GPL, so no
problem about the license. There are also other programs and games in the
repository which are more or less vers
Hi,
Would you think the license CC Sampling Plus 1.0 from Creative Commons would
be DFSG-Free?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode
I'm not very sure about this part:
* Re-creativity permitted. You may create and reprodu
Hi,
I might package a game created by a teenager, so I wanted to make sure that
the fact thas she's minor wouldn't be a problem. I don't know if she has
right to license what she does, or it must be her parents, or something like
that. Any thoughts on this? Is there any difference in her being ov
Hi,
I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game called "Which Way Is
Up?" ( http://hectigo.net/puskutraktori/whichwayisup/ ) and maintain it.
All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. All the game content,
sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution
lic
2007/11/22, Tim Ansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> As part of the Gaming Miniconf at Linux.conf.au 2008 I am hoping to run
> a "Licensing Issues for (Game) Content Developers" panel session.
>
> I know that there have been issues with games getting into debian's main
> repository due to the l
As usual, I'm having some problems with licenses in Japanese.
>From what I can understand, this license is free (public domain, in fact):
The Match-Makers (http://osabisi.sakura.ne.jp/m2/):
http://879.hanac200x.jp/se/index.html
ここの素材は著作権フリーですので、商用でも何でも自由に使って頂いて構いません。
"This mater
2008/1/7, Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Miriam,
>
> http://879.hanac200x.jp/se/index.html
>
> This site does appear to be copyright free and allows commercial and
> non-commercial use. For commercial use however you need to contact the
> author.
>
> ここの素材は著作権フリーですので、商用でも何でも自由に使って頂いて構いません。
> 但し、
2008/1/8, Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Point taken. Japanese courts seem to be a bit more concerned with intent
> rather than the strength of the wording of a written agreement. If
> non-commercial use being prohibited without permission is non-free then this
> work should be interpreted as no
2008/1/9, Barry deFreese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> In trying to upgrade to the latest upstream for stormbaancoureur for the
> Debian Games Team, Paul Wise caught the following in the package.
>
> From /stormbaancoureur-2.0.1/images-stormbaancoureur/README
>
> "engine.tga
> Rendered from purch
f the image.
This was the conversation I had with upstream about that some time ago:
2007/8/15, Bram Stolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 8/15/07, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2007/8/15, Bram Stolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > &g
2008/1/13, Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> i just found the following 'ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7' at
> http://www.donhopkins.com/home/micropolis/ for the former game SimCity
> (now Micropolis). I would like to discuss it's DFSG freeness here:
Martin: Are you planning
Tom "spot" Callaway, from Red Hat, announced [1] that Fedora won't be
including any game of the kind of Frets on Fire, Stepmania, pydance,
digiband, or anything of the kind of DDR or Guitar Hero, due to patent
concerns [2].
"""
Due to patent concerns, we won't be able to include any games in Fedor
Hi,
I have some small problem with Gnash that might be extensible to other
packages, so I'm asking here to find out if anyone else has had that
problem too and how did they manage it.
Gnash is GNU's free Flash player. It is now licensed under GPLv3 (it
was previously GPLv2 or above). It has a rea
2008/1/24, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Miriam,
>
> You will be interested that Trolltech has released Qt 3.3.8 under GPL 3:
Thanks, it really solves a great part of the problem, but I have no
idea on how to check that there are no other GPLv2 only libraries
directly or indirectly linked
2008/2/26, Eitan Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "In addition to the permissions and restrictions contained in the GNU
> General Public License (GPL), the copyright holders grant two explicit
> permissions and impose one explicit restriction. The permissions are:
>
> 1) Using, copying, merging
2008/2/27, Mike Sivill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by the "desert island test?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, there
> is no explanation of how a "licenses in which any changes must be sent to
> some specific place" violates:
>
> 1. Free redistribution.
1. Free Redistribution: The lic
2008/2/26, Eitan Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 3. The translation tables that are read at run-time are considered
> part of this code and are under the terms of the GPL. Any changes to
> these tables and any additional tables that are created for use by
> this code must be made publicly avai
2008/3/5, Diggory Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So, I was wondering if it makes the most sense to take a flexible approach
> and
> release under "version 2 or later" of the GPL, albeit allowing problems with
> either version of the license to be exploited, or be less flexible and
> release und
2008/3/6, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In my opinion, the decision boils down to:
>
> o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to
> keep the promise that future versions of the GNU GPL will be "similar
> in spirit to the present version"[2][3], then you may choo
2008/3/5, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rather, it would be "comunicación pública" instead of "distribución".
>
> Law translation is a very specialized field; there's a reason that the
> various translations of the GPL on the FSF website are not legally binding.
> National laws that red
2008/3/11, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why describe the dissident test as relying solely on the "field of
> endeavour" (DFSG 6) guideline? That's new and also seems like a strawman:
> I think that it's clear that protesting is a field, but I don't think
> identity-disclosure necessarily prev
What about "6.2 - In the event Yahoo! determines that You have
breached this Agreement, Yahoo! may terminate this Agreement." ? Would
it give Yahoo! the power to terminate the license randomly at their
will (for example, if Microsoft buys it in the future), or is it safe
enough? In any case, I don'
2008/3/14, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The rest of the license seems to be a weak copyleft that's
> GPL-incompatible.
Both v2 and v3 I guess?
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/3/19, timothy demulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Could someone explain me why flashplugin-nonfree is residing in contrib and
> not in non-free?
Because the contents of that package are free (GPL v2 only). They just
depend on some other non-free stuff out of Debian. Keep in mind tha
It seems that Gibson might be trying to stop Guitar Hero like games.
Activision filed a lawsuit asking the US District Court for Central
California to invalidate a 1999 Gibson patent on "simulating a musical
performance". I don't think this applies to Frets on Fire, but just in
case, does anyone th
2008/4/14, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "teeworlds".
>
> * Package name: teeworlds
> Version : 0.4.2-0
> Upstream Author : Magnus Auvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.teeworlds.com
> * Lic
2008/4/14, Jack Coulter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I asked around on the Teeworlds IRC channel, they pointed me to the
> following thread on thier forums:
> http://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957
>
> The second post, by user matricks (matricks = copyright holder) clarifies
> this:
>
>
2008/4/29 Thorsten Schmale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> can you please check the following license for compliance:
Am I missing something or that's a standard 2-clause BSD license? [1]
Miry
[1]
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-85700b45e3e6dfe08d94e89b596be0e2a297c0c5
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
--- Friday 20/6/08, Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry for the unpleasantness of this bug report :(
>
> I don't think you can apply the BSD license to the
> screenshots for all games. I think there is a compelling
> argument that a thumbnailed screenshot is a derivative
2008/6/21 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Francesco,
>> Could someone out there help clarify those issues, please?
>
> I hope mine is a useful contribution.
> What I don't fully understand is: what is the purpose of the
> games-thumbnails package?
Yes, it definitely is a useful contributi
AFAIK, CC-by-sa 2.0 is NOT DFSG-Free
CC-by-sa 3.0 is DFSG-free anyway. Would it be possible to convince
upstream to relicense it under this newer version?
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
The next actions then will be to remove all non-free games from the
thumbnails package and add all the copyright and license texts for the
games. At some point someone might consider adding a
games-thumbnails-nonfree package or something like that. I'm not
really sure about it anyway, as the c
Hi,
Yesterday I filed an ITP [1] to package a 3D game engine in Python,
called PySoy [2]. The package is almost finished, but I'm facing a
problem that I have to clarify before uploading it to Debian. The
latest release (beta2) is GPLv3, but for next one (beta3) they're
changing the license to AGP
2008/8/16 Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OoO En cette fin de nuit blanche du samedi 16 août 2008, vers 06:47,
> "Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait :
>
>> Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
>
> Hi Miriam!
>
> Some discussions have
2008/8/18 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think there are other unclear aspects of the licence, some of which
> may give rise to loopholes that we can use, which are largely similar
> to those in AGPLv2 outlined by Anthony Towns in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00380.html
This
2008/8/19 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Greets. It's been awhile since I unsubscribed to this list, so a quick
> introduction is that I'm the maintainer of the PySoy project, the game
> engine being discussed here.
Thanks a lot for your input here, Arc :)
> your modified version must prominen
2008/8/19 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To cut down on number of emails, I'm replying to both Miriam and Francesco
> below:
Thanks a lot for your explanation, it clarifies a lot of things.
> You are absolutely allowed to use that software in a private manner without
> AGPLv3 section 13 coming
I filed a bug to know the ftpmasters opinion on the subject:
http://bugs.debian.org/495721
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/8/21 Christofer C. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, everything is pointing towards this situation:
>> 1) The program must somehow inform the other user that the source code
>>
2008/8/23 Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So everything is fine until someone wants to modify the software.
> But if they do, you say they are no longer allowed to run it without
> fullfilling some restrictions. I fail to see how anyone can consider that
> free.
A new question has come to
2008/8/25 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is
> confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be
> considered by our project as false advertising in grouping us along side
> blatently proprietary apps.
I
2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that
>>> the AGPLv3 fails the dissident test?
>>Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program
> Not that this matters, since this "test" i
2008/8/27 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you sayin
2008/8/28 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Miriam Ruiz writes ("Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?"):
>>> Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
>>Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, and there
>>is an imp
2008/8/28 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Not all restrictions are bad and unfree (except for the morons who argue
>>> here from time to time that the GPL may not actually be DFSG-free).
>>There's no need to be rude or to insult [1] anyone just because they
>>don'
2008/8/30 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just host the source code at Savannah or any other similar service.
How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code?
And, how can one do that and at the same time keep being anonymous
(dissident test)?
Greetings,
Miry
PS: I agree with Fran
2008/9/1 Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> AGPLv3 may or may not be free, but as the discussion goes on I am
> finding the arguments against it less credible as they seem to be
> invoking 'problems' that are not really problems.
Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my
2008/9/1 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how
>> to get the full source code.
>
> The license does not say you must advertise, only that you "must prominently
> offer". In your example of an IRC network, providing a source URL wit
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
> act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
> with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
> That leaves the rest of the license intact
2008/9/2 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
> interacted with the services provided by that software using the
> attached monitor and keyboard. Now, I interact with the services
> provided by software that runs on a computer somew
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> What about point 12?
>
> What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable
> or that I am excused from complying with it is not a "condition" in
> the sense of article 12.
OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a cour
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
> exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
> notify anyone in part
2008/9/3 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
>> (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
>> distributing the binary. The AGPL requi
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> released, MJ Ray's concerns are quite real and they're something to
> think about quite seriously.
I meant Don's concerns, sorry.
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...]
>>
>> I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and
>> Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name.
>> Which services allow anonymous h
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>> Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
>
> The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
> distribution passes the test, but only that it's
2008/9/10 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless
> you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses
> are nearly identical, after all.
A single sentence, even a single word, can change everything in
2008/9/11 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> You just changed it.
>> You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure).
>
> No. It is neither standard nor customary to re-release an entire package
> for a small bugfix. You could just upload a patch to the project's mailing
>
2008/9/15 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
>> the
>> binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code)
>> is a
>> rectriction?
2008/9/17 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
> fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
> the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
> packaged". Thus if the game
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
> data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but that is not unlike
> GFDL licensed documentation that
2008/9/19 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, I am upset this is the second time someone has made unfounded and
> unresearched claims on this list regarding "extra clauses" being applied to
> our software, and a good example why I'd prefer if Debian not have anything
> to do with our project.
T
Hi,
Does anyone know how this affects us -if it does- and if it might
change anything for the packages and programs that have problems with
software patents? Might there be any consequences out of this -even
though it is somehow USA-specific- or is it just blog noise?
Greetings,
Miry
The Paten
2008/11/28 Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
> about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
>
> The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
> go into main. (Provided they don't have any other p
2008/12/2 Filippo Argiolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Miriam, probably you should forward them my last reply too.
Yup, sorry, I wrote my email before yours.
> As I said I'm open to a name change or a suggestion.
> The game it's been in Debian for more than one year now and no one
> ever complain
2008/12/2 Hans de Goede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ok, well in that case I'll pass I'm already bothering legal way too often
> with games related questions.
It would be better to have a name upstream likes, but if the name is
not legally safe for Fedora, it won't be for Debian either and
ignoring the
2008/12/2 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Resource requirements have not traditionally been considered factors
> in judging software freeness.
>
> But you are right that the AGPL (and perhaps the GPL version 3 as
> well) fail my personal test for DRM-ness: A feature which, once added,
> cann
Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to
what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA
still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the
rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon
data in any format, generall
2009/3/23 Greg Harris :
> I do not profess any expertise or experience with Debian policies other
> than a general reading. Nor do I think of myself as a defender or
> critic of any particular variation of a "free" license that an author
> might choose. From the various objections I have read abou
2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg :
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
>> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
>> > grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
>>
>> Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of unilate
EUPL v1.1 full text:
European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1
Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007
Preamble
The attached "European Union Public Licence" ("EUPL") has been elaborated
in the framework of IDABC, a European Communi
Just in case anyone is interested, I've attached the diff between
versions 1.0 and 1.1. You can also read it online [1]
Greetings,
Miry
[1] http://pastebin.com/f64abf600
--- EUPL-1.0.txt 2009-01-23 13:09:40.0 +0100
+++ EUPL-1.1.txt 2009-01-23 13:15:14.0 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-
2009/4/14 Michael Crawford :
> There are actually four licenses to consider. Each is different from
> the others in significant ways; it would be a terrible mistake to
> choose any of them without fully understanding the consequences of
> one's choice:
>
> GPL2 only
> GPL2 or any later version
> G
2009/5/27 Mark Weyer :
>> > This looks very similar to distributing a picture which is a 2D
>> > rendering of a 3D model without distributing the original model. This is
>> > already accepted in the archive, and the reason is that a 2D picture is
>> > its own source, and can serve as a base for mod
2009/6/16 Martin Quinson :
> Hello,
>
> I am considering packaging the TLA software suite, which is available
> from
> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/tla/tools.html
>
> I am however not sure about the license (in attachement). It seems quite
> non-free to me, but I may be wro
2009/6/16 Sune Vuorela :
> On 2009-06-16, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>> There is also the part "That you will not use the Software in a live
>> operating environment where it may be relied upon to perform in the
>> same manner as a commercially released product, or with
2009/8/4 Brian :
> The smssend package was removed from Debian for the reason stated in bug
> #399685.
Have a look at http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
Hi,
Have a look at this part: "With the exception of content with an
individual readme file, all
content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
distribution". It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission.
My approach for this package was to package te gam
2010/2/22 Scott Howard :
> Thanks Miry,
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>> MPL is not compatible with GPL, so we have to be very careful that the
>> game doesn't link against nothing GPL'ed, and is not GPL'ed itself, if
>> it u
2010/4/5 Francesco Poli :
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 23:52:45 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 08:11:26PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> > Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:22:53AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > >> However, it is my opinion that works wit
Hi,
There's some old code I am working on, but which unfortunately is not
supported by upstream anymore. Thus, I've decided to become the new
upstream and make the code evolve myself. The original license says
hat:
Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software and its
documentation
2010/10/15 Magnus Blomfelt :
> 2010/10/15 Miriam Ruiz :
>> Hi,
> Hi Miriam
Hi!
> I did some research and I think I managed to find the original author.
> A private mail has been sent and it would be good to know how it goes!
Hey, that will be great! Thanks! :)
> (I'm
Hi all,
I'm thinking about building a package for RtMidi [1], as I'm
developing a package of a software that embeds it, and already found
some other packages in the archive doing it. I'm not very keen on
having duplicated code around. In any case, the license [2], a custom
licensed based on MIT, s
Hi,
2010/10/17 Francesco Poli :
> In summary, I would say that this license is equivalent to the
> Expat/MIT license, accompanied by a kind request that does not alter
> the license terms.
2010/10/17 MJ Ray :
> It looks like a request not a requirement, so it's fine as far as I
> understand the
2011/3/8 Mahyuddin Susanto :
>> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
>> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
>> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
>> linking to a library? To a programmer, there
Hi,
A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
Community License 1.0 [1]:
---
This Educational Community License (the "License") applies
to any original work of authorship (the "Original Work") wh
2011/8/19 Andres Mejia :
> Here's another helpful link. [1] Scroll down until you see notes about
> the Educational Community License.
>
> 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Thanks, but please notice that I'm talking about Educational Community
License 1.0, not about Educational Com
2011/8/19 Francesco Poli :
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:56:43 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Miriam,
> nice to read you!
Nice to read you too! Thanks for your answer!! :)
> Apart from the fact that it is the n-th non-copyleft permissive license
> and that whoe
2012/3/17 Jérémy Lal :
> Hi,
> could anyone help me resolve this license question :
> https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
>
> i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.
Just for the record, the license says:
Copyright 2011 Isaac Z. Schlueter (the "Author
2013/9/3 Charles Plessy
> Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:06:01AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
> >
> > Excess repetition makes many of us regulars pay less attention to the
> > topics. I'll mention this specific example, trying not to make it into
> > an ad-hominem: Francesco has a *great* license com
> As I know (maybe I just didn't found it) there is no "final judgement" about
> the EUPL.
EUPL 1.1 [1] has this clause [2]:
Compatibility clause:
If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or
copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work
licensed under
Hi,
This was quite predictable to happen sometime. Games are a lot about
telling stories, and stories can come in very different flavours. As
we are planning to maybe getting a game into Debian, that has explicit
erotic or sexual contents -I haven't really played it myself, so I
don't really know
2014-03-10 2:44 GMT+01:00 Bas Wijnen :
> For that reason, I would advise not to include this game in Debian (and
> not to spend your time on packaging it). But note that I'm not setting
> the rules here. If you feel strongly that it adds value to the system,
> feel free to explain why, and pleas
2014-03-10 14:48 GMT+01:00 Nils Dagsson Moskopp :
> Miriam Ruiz writes:
>> in the web page, and reading the comments in previous mails. I find
>> your description of the game very disturbing, and I'm thinking that it
>> may be even be triggering for some people.
>
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo