Re: Bug#1029055: Debian Expat and SPDX MIT License Text

2023-01-16 Thread Soren Stoutner
There appears to be some question of opinion as to if the Debian MIT (Expat) License is the same as the SPDX MIT License. https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html[2] Can somebody at Debian Legal please comment? -- Soren Stoutner so...@stoutner.com

Re: Bug#1029055: Debian Expat and SPDX MIT License Text

2023-01-16 Thread Soren Stoutner
elines-and-templates/[1] On Monday, January 16, 2023 11:48:48 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote: > There appears to be some question of opinion as to if the Debian MIT (Expat) > License is the same as the SPDX MIT License. > > https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit[1] > > https://

Re: Bug#1029055: Debian Expat and SPDX MIT License Text

2023-01-18 Thread Soren Stoutner
> I think the answer is that what Debian calls "MIT (Expat)" on that > page matches what SPDX calls "MIT" (I don't think they are "the same" > because the underlying concepts of what a license is and so forth are > not the same). > > Richard

Re: Another 2-clause BSD or a mistake?

2024-03-16 Thread Soren Stoutner
is? If it is not a BSD variant, how should it be dealt with/named? > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/unworkable > > Regards, > > David -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

2024-04-12 Thread Soren Stoutner
: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath 2013 Gregor Herrmann 2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann 2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville 2022 Bastian Germann 2022-2024 Soren Stoutner License: GPL-3+ Comment: The following copyright holders additionally license their

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

2024-04-12 Thread Soren Stoutner
+ file can be contributed to an upstream GPLv3+ project (that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions with any additional permission from the copyright holders). On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:40:55 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote: > As an additio

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

2024-04-12 Thread Soren Stoutner
24 12:48:20 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote: > As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed > GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, > which would convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of > the files in

Re: Compatibility of LGPL-3+ and LGPL-2.1 in same library.

2024-06-06 Thread Soren Stoutner
MST Arun Kumar Pariyar wrote: > Dear Legal Team, > > Can LGPL-3+ and LGPL-2.1 licensed code be used together in the same library, > or is re-licensing required? > Your guidance on their compatibility would be > greatly appreciated. > > Regards, > ~ Arun Kumar Pariya

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

2024-06-27 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:13:38 PM MST Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Soren Stoutner writes: > > As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed > > GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, > > which would conve

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

2024-06-27 Thread Soren Stoutner
bian/*. [1] https://sources.debian.org/src/web-mode/17.0.2-1/debian/copyright/ [2] https://sources.debian.org/src/web-mode/17.0.2-1/debian/changelog/ -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

2024-07-02 Thread Soren Stoutner
rightable the contents of debian/* are, the consensus of the Debian community is that they are copyrightable and that the copyright and licensing information should be explicitly stated. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

2024-08-28 Thread Soren Stoutner
tatus of the icons (which is separate from any trademark issues)? -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

2024-08-28 Thread Soren Stoutner
‘+dfsg’. As an example, see: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/electrum So, this isn’t a blocker for Debian packaging, but it is necessary that you document (in debian/copyright) that every file that ends up in the tarballs that are archived on Debian servers in “main” as part of the source package

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

2024-08-28 Thread Soren Stoutner
to remove files in the source tree that are not compatible with the DFSG. This is because the files would remain in the upstream tarball, and thus in the source package, so the source package would continue to violate DFSG. Instead, the upstream source should be repacked to remove those fil

Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

2024-10-10 Thread Soren Stoutner
able the complete source code of those modifications” -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Question about license

2024-09-17 Thread Soren Stoutner
to which is the original package) and that is not considered a DFSG problem. 2. It requires that derivatives must use the same license. That isn’t a standard part of a MIT (Expat) license, but it is a standard part of other DFSG licenses (like the GPL), so I don’t think it would be a DFSG

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-25 Thread Soren Stoutner
es of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.” Those exact words appear at the top of the GPL, which is considered a free license. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-29 Thread Soren Stoutner
Florian, On Friday, November 29, 2024 1:22:07 AM MST Florian Weimer wrote: > * Soren Stoutner: > > The GFDL with Invariant Section is not the right comparison. The correct > > comparison is to the GPL (which has the exact same wording). > > The FSF gives permission to make

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-29 Thread Soren Stoutner
argument that the DCO isn’t *effective* at supporting the chain of custody of the end-user licensing of the code, but I think that without question that is what the *intention* of the DCO is. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/dco -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-27 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > Soren Stoutner writes: > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote: > >> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote: > >> > On Wednesday, November

Re: Question regarding source files with unclear license

2024-11-14 Thread Soren Stoutner
, I can see no reason to assume that these files are not DFSG-free (it sounds like the previous maintainer made an assumption instead of having any definitive information). Unless someone provides some evidence to the contrary, I think you are fine to include them in the package along with co

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-26 Thread Soren Stoutner
of custody of the license. It documents that the person providing the license has the right to provide you with the license, similar to how a copyright statement documents that the person providing the license has the right to provide you with the license. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signa

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-26 Thread Soren Stoutner
red to the end users. Rather, it is part of the license under which the files are delivered from the contributor to the project. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-26 Thread Soren Stoutner
about the GPL will automatically apply to the DCO. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-26 Thread Soren Stoutner
lf shouldn’t appear, but the results of any contributions to the project made under the DCO should. So, for example, the "open source license indicated in the file” referenced by the DCO should be in debian/copyright. And, any copyright information the contributor listed in the file will

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-27 Thread Soren Stoutner
ser license, it provides documentation the project had the rights to license the software the way they did. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

2024-11-27 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:48:51 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> I don't follow. Do you believe the DCO is a license text? &g

Re: Removal of copyright years

2025-02-06 Thread Soren Stoutner
years when the copyright expires on parts of the contained work. It is left to the user to determine when copyright expires for a particular file if they need to know that information. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: License review: tarsnap

2025-02-05 Thread Soren Stoutner
ILITY OF > SUCH DAMAGE. I would just like to second what has already been stated in this thread, which is that I don’t see any problems with this license in non-free, with the note that I think this license does preclude the use of anything in debian/patches. Currently, there are no patche

Re: Removal of copyright years

2025-02-06 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08:06 PM MST Ben Ramsey wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2025, at 13:25, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > > > In my opinion, no copyright statement is complete without a year range, > > because this tells you when the copyright would be expected to expire.

Re: Is the Open Government Licence v3.0 (OGL-UK-3.0) DFSG-free ?

2025-01-27 Thread Soren Stoutner
the other licence. The OGLv3.0 is Open Definition compliant." -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: License review: Trusted Computing Group

2025-01-28 Thread Soren Stoutner
ncluding liability for infringement of any proprietary > > rights, relating to use of information in this specification and to > > the implementation of this specification, and TCG disclaims all > > liability for cost of procurement of substitute goods or services, > > lost profits

Re: Unsplash, the DFSG, and the GPL

2025-03-15 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Friday, March 14, 2025 12:10:45 PM Mountain Standard Time Soren Stoutner wrote: > However, as you can’t combine Unsplash or CC-BY-SA 3.0 code with the GPL, > there is no way you can ship Endless Sky in its current state in Debian or > anywhere else. I realized that when I wrote this

Re: Unsplash, the DFSG, and the GPL

2025-03-14 Thread Soren Stoutner
e code for years. Sometimes this is easy to fix upstream and sometimes it takes a lot of work to excise the incompatible licenses. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: RC bug for src:libfcgi

2025-04-04 Thread Soren Stoutner
ssment. Assuming he is correct about LICENSE.TERMS applying to these files, and I have no reason to believe it doesn’t unless somewhere they are listed as excluded, then this license makes our distribution of these files DFSG-free. It doesn’t really matter that their header says they woul

Re: dkopp package copyright and license text

2025-04-22 Thread Soren Stoutner
ed in a business, or from being used for genetic research." -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: package dkopp new upstream version copyright Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 Unported

2025-04-19 Thread Soren Stoutner
I will make a new release available shortly. > I plan to include a small technical change. Thank you for being so accommodating. We enjoy working with upstream developers to provide the best experience to our users. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: The Project Gutenberg license, packages using its books as testdata

2025-03-08 Thread Soren Stoutner
ublic domain worldwide). Also, as you pointed out in your analysis, to exercise the public domain option the package maintainer would need to verify that “all references to Project Gutenberg are removed”, which you have stated is not currently the case with this package and doesn’t

Re: The Project Gutenberg license, packages using its books as testdata

2025-03-08 Thread Soren Stoutner
worldwide). Also, as you pointed out in your analysis, to exercise the public domain option the package maintainer would need to verify that “all references to Project Gutenberg are removed”, which you have stated is not currently the case with this package and doesn’t appear to be th

Re: Guidance Needed on Licensing for a Debian Package

2025-03-10 Thread Soren Stoutner
es: stanza for each one, even though I could have combined them because they are under the same license. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Guidance Needed on Licensing for a Debian Package

2025-03-11 Thread Soren Stoutner
gt; > This new version has been modified to remove incompatible fonts and group all > remaining fonts by license type. > > --- > > Additionally, Soren Stoutner pointed out an important detail regarding > OFL-licensed fonts that have a Reserved Font Name (RFN). My q

Re: Guidance Needed on Licensing for a Debian Package

2025-03-11 Thread Soren Stoutner
tice the CC-BY-ND-4 when I was looking over the licenses. Definitely DFSG non-free. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: TFS-CMU license

2025-02-12 Thread Soren Stoutner
he license specifies that only CMU has the right to distribute the software. Everyone else only has the rights to use or modify it. My guess is this was just an oversight by the person drafting the license, but given how it is written I think it wouldn’t be DFSG-free. -- Soren Stoutner so..