Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
>
> > Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
> > requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
> > request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
>
Raul Miller wrote:
> Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> the change author can receive any requests.
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Licening issues resolved! Thanks all.
>
> Cheers,
> Remco.
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:39:00 -0400
> From: "Brent Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Remco Seesink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Licening ibwebadmin
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
>> the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
>> software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
>> test as written
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
> following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>
> The Dictator Test:
>
>
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
>> > the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
>> > software, an
Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
> while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
> the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
> not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
>>>10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the
>>>trademarks or trade names "Apple", "Apple Computer", "Mac", "Mac OS",
>>>&
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
>> clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
>
> So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
> licenses:
>
> http://crea
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> First, let me try to define what I'm calling "non-software":
Stop. Call it "non-programs". Here, when we say "software", we mean "it
ain't hardware".
> Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> call non-software content, looks like a com
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
>
> - Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The
Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long
> enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think
> of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in
> some important way.
>
> For example, how is this different th
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [...]
>> > 1. The version number will be modified as follows:
>> > a. The first 3 components of the version number
>> > (i.e ..) will remain unchanged.
>> > b. A new component will be app
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> It's probably not a good idea to take every discussion on debian-legal
> as an argument. My theory at the time was that the old PC emulators'
> dependence on non-free system OS ROMs (like the atari800 package) had
> been fossilized into a policy that _all_ emulators depend
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:40:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> This is basically a trick of wording. If the license lets you ship it
>> with the one-character shell script containing the letter 'w' and charge
>> for that, then that
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
>> TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't
>> packaged), the only thing it will do is display an error message that no
>> ROM w
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 15:09 -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
>
>> > Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
>> > 'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
>> The same reason fceu was in contrib until 'efp' was packaged
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed
>> one format of images, and there were no images out there in that
>> format, would you want to see that in Debian? What if there were
>> ima
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If you mean freely as in DFSG-free software with DFSG-content, then
> should we get rid of mpg321? What about mmix? (I think that's the name
> of the emulator for Knuth's made-up machine.)
You can compile for mmix using gcc. No kidding.
>> The Depends field should be
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Emulators work perfectly correctly without software to emulate. NO$GMB
> does the same thing with no image loaded that my gameboy does with no
> cartridge in the slot.
It has 'no significant functionality'.
> Pacifist (I assume) does the same thing with no
> BIOS that a r
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
>> Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
>> that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
>>
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
>> This was all discussed to death when Quake 2 was GPL'd [1]. The main
>> problem I see is that if you accept these arguments, contrib becomes
>> empty.
>
> Except for all the programs that depend on proprietary libraries
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
>> As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible
>>
>> "Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are
>> not DFSG-free."
>>
>> found on debian-legal
>> http://lists.debia
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed one
>> format of images, and there were no images out there in that format,
>> would you
>> want to see that in Debian? What if there were images in that format,
>> but in o
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Can we generalize and say something like any license which attempts to
> restrict beyond the lowest common denominator of copyright laws that
> exist today?
>
> Or is the Autocrat Test simply a jurisdictional test?
Neither. What I think it's about is precisely this fro
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
>> > the change author can receive any requests.
>> Via a message dropped from a passing airpla
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
>> > software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
>> > dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Pr
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
>
> I think this is the crux of the matter. But -just thinking
> aloud here- what if the consideration is "you promise to
Lex Spoon wrote:
>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
>
> Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the
> author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or
> fee; it doe
batist wrote:
> It's a bit like the
> contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of
> the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely
> legal in civil law.
Perhaps the correct statement is that free licenses must be gifts? :-)
This corresponds with
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Lucas Nussbaum:
>>
>> > IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
>> > GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
>>
>> It looks like a fallback close simil
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
>> On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
>>> removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
>>
>> Consider the author's name outside
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
>> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
>> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
>> DFSG-free. Oth
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right, that's basically my point. There's plenty of grey fuzziness here,
> and the QPL falls within it. debian-legal have produced some tests in an
> attempt to clarify which bits of the grey fuzziness are free or not, but
> they're effectively arbitrary - they haven't bee
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
>> isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
>> coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
>> that su
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
>>be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
>>Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
>
> Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for sending source mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
> worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it,
> since i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml
> package. And i wonder if it will co
,--- Forwarded message (begin)
Subject: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
From: Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:08:12 -0400
Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project,gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Colin Watson
Florian Weimer wrote:
> The main idea behind some patent clauses is to make the copyright
> license conditional on some behavior with respect to patents.
Such as not claiming in a lawsuit that the work infringes a patent? :-)
Well, in that case, there are two possibilities:
(1) The work doesn't
MJ Ray wrote:
>> I suspect a first step is to split the licences into copyright and
>> trademark sections if possible.
That's not necessarily necessary if it's a very permissive license and is
written very carefully, but it is probably a good idea.
>> I assume this needs to be a US law
>> copyrig
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> The Dictator Test:
>>
>> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
>> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
>> applicable laws.
>>
>> License
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
>>>least one Free document in the word processor's format,
>>
>> Except that in this case, new documents c
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > > * Package name: musicxml
>> > > * URL : http://musicxml.org/dtds/
>> > > * License : MusicXML Document Type Definition Public
Mike Olson wrote:
> I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
> What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, 2-clause BSD, MIT/X11.
(We have high hopes that CC-by will be amended to be so but it isn't now.)
> How do you guys think about marks, an
Walter Landry wrote:
> There is no official mouthpiece of debian-legal. However, I would say
> that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
> The "choice of venue" and the "send changes back" clauses are both
> problematic.
We do think it doesn't have *that* many problems
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Øystein Gisnås:
>
>> I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
>> package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
>> non-free section.
>
> This is from their web site:
>
> | (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, un
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
>
> > Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
> >
> > >If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! --
> > >and happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to
> > >distribute it
> > >b
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
>> > where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
>> > and the other does not, and both have choice of law and
Andreas Barth wrote:
> That's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
> typical civil law construct.
And a disastrous mistake, but never mind that!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
> modifications;
Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
> the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
> rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications.
What right? :-)
--
Ther
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
> Those who
> actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any s
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that
>>are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that
>>change if you distribute the software privately to one other person?
>
> No, since undistributed modification is protected by
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
>>anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
>>distributing, morally and comfor
Sven Luther wrote:
> 6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> then you must supply one.
>
> So, if you make a release that is not general, but limited to a small
> group of people, then the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
> any time anyway? What practical benefit does this o
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
> The new version:
>
> | By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
> | derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with
> | Request Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you
> | are the copyright holder for thos
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
> obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
> we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
> patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-fre
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Send it to a third party" and "reveal your identity" are just as readily
>>read as non-free from DFSG#1 as "pet a cat" and "distribution only on CD".
>>If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think
>
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hello debian-legal.
>> >
>> > I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the
>> > QPL is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working
Florian Weimer wrote:
> We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
> of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
> itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do li
MJ Ray wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html
>
> Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would
> like to propose replacing them with:
>
> 1) Draft summaries should be marked clear
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
>> >How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
>> >use, modify or distribute the software.
>>
>> As I understand it, it limits all those rights
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> By replying to any messages in this thread, you agree to order me a pizza.
So, what's your address and what's your local pizza place? ;-)
> The above is merely a false statement.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
>> distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
>> binary-only for other reasons separate from th
MJ Ray wrote:
> In general, I don't think this ocaml bug should be pursued until
> general issues have been settled (or comprehensively fail to reach
> anything like consensus in reasonable time) for libcwd, which came
> here more recently. Is it proper for any packager of a QPL'd work
> currently
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>>> Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
>>> debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
>>> anyone
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
> license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
> good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
> free.
I would assume that if a licensor put suc
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
>> > players removed from Debian main?
>>
>> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the "Open Use" logo; I'm not
>> going to worry about the other one).
>>
>> Copyright license:
>> "You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Nathaneal Nerode writes:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
>>Many interpretations.
>>
>>> Those who
>>> actually end up making the decisions
>>RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally
>>*no
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Personally, I think all of our "tests" should be explicitly tied to some
practical concern so we have some basis for reasoning when unanticipated
situations arise.]
This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right
to criticize the author, su
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
>> patents. If a license termination clause isn't being acti
I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages.
* The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS
instrument aboard the Terra satellite.? Further information is
available
from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsr
* All other planet maps from David Seal's site:
http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/
License for these is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm, and
here it is:
---
Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites
ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may
Well, I did the rest in one message since the comments were short.
* Mars texture map is from James Hastings-Trew's collection.
Is there any information known about the origin of this? That's really
necessary before you can legally distribute it. If James Hastings-Trew took
the pictures, a
Correction. :-)
* M31, Orion and the Pleiades pictures come from Herm Perez :
http://home.att.net/~hermperez/default.htm
Just found this on the web page:
"Feel free to use these images, if you use them in a commercial setting please
attribute the source."
That's the li
>No, you stated it fine. A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
>logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
>confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
We have accepted must-change-name clauses (which are worse) in the past based
on the reasoni
I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages.
* The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS
instrument aboard the Terra satellite.? Further
information is
available
from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New
While a work may be in the public domain in the U.S., it may be under
copyright elsewhere. So, e.g., while works by the U.S. government may be
public domain in the U.S., they may remain under copyright in other
countries.
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
>So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
>the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
>same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
>the core of Nathaniel's concerns.
That's Nathan*a*el. :-)
Looks good. I was
appear to have: Edmund Evans, Steve Langasek,
Andrew Suffield, Brian Sniffen, Evan Prodromou, Branden Robinson, Josh
Triplett, Michael Poole, MJ Ray, Nathanael Nerode, Henning Makholm, Raul
Miller, Matthew Palmer, Walter Landry, and myself.
Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue
Joe Wreschnig wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00200.html:
>I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
>is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause. That is, the X
>license says "Permission is hereby granted... subject to the following
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the
>differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it
>applies to?
Absolutely.
In the X11 license:
"Permission is hereby granted provided that... and that... appear in
supporting docu
In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(
>Ahh, the horror continues.
>
>I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.
Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to
use his code under "any license" as l
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>The X license also says permission is granted "subject to the following
>conditions" (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
anything of the sort.
Are we perhaps talking about enti
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
All right.
>2. Don't break threads.
This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine
>On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Pay more attention. :-)
>>
Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
the ocaml
> 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
>
> As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
clause QPL
> 6c problem.
Excellent.
FYI, I think t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally
>agreed on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic
>licensing firewall, such that GPL code isn't "linked" against the
>kernel or to other, unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal
>gr
BTS wrote:
>3. Distribute them to the initial developer under the same license --
> that is, without letting him distribute changes to my patches (such
> as the application of them to the mainline source) except as
> further patches.
Ah, the devil's in the details. See, I was wondering whet
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
> technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
> *which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
> license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
> L
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> I'm not sure which project Bruce refers to when he talks about the "project
> leader" here. I assume the "Debian project". Apparently. SPI will change the
> licence if the Debian project tells them to.
Debian-legal: should Martin Michlmayr, the DPL, be asked to change the
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
> should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
> what needs to be done to change the license, and I've asked Matthew
> Garrett to discuss the trademark issue with SPI's trademar
shermans-aquarium:
"The fish images are taken from a freeware windows screen saver by
Jim Toomey.(www.slagoon.com)...
...So the fish images are copyrighted by Jim Toomey, and released
in his screensaver as freeware. But he didn't give me permission to use
his graphics, but neither did he tell me
Kaquarium appears to contain graphics from shermans-aquarium,
but without the copyright notices
Plus upstream doesn't have any statement saying that it's under the GPL.
(Neither does kfish, by the same upstream.)
Clearly the ftpmasters don't have time to check whether NEW packages are
actuall
Glenn Maynard asked:
>Is it valid to combine GPL work placed under "GPL version 2" with one
>under "GPL version 2 or any later version"? That is, do versioning
>choices impact compatibility (when the versions overlap)? Are all future
>modifications bound to give the same permission to upgrade the
Sven Luther asked:
>BTW, what about an upload of miboot to non-free ? What would be needed for
>that ? A simple permission from apple ?
Permission for Debian and its mirror network to distribute the boot sector.
That's all that would be needed for non-free.
--
Regarding clearn-room reverse-eng
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You're
> replying to my forwarding of the official answer, repeating the answer
> as if it wasn't there. I can't imagine why, though I'm a little wary
> at the moment for a Nerode-flood of thirty such useless replies at once
> ...
Reading list mail *way* behind, sorry. I w
Mark Hymers wrote:
> A wdiff between this and the VTK license shows that just the names of
> the contributors have been changed (as you'd expect). It appears to be
> a modified BSD license (i.e. without advertising clause) with one extra
> clause:
>
> * Modified source versions must be plainly m
ork on a 'public domain equivalent license'?
Hope this helps,
--Nathanael Nerode
101 - 200 of 777 matches
Mail list logo
