Dear legal aware folks,
I have recently adopted [1]gimp-gap. While reviewing it, I noticed
that the copyright notice written on almost every file is inaccurate.
It reads
THE GIMP -- an image manipulation program
Copyright (C) 1995 Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis.
Everything in there
ml
Thanks in advance for any advice,
Regards, Thibaut.
copyright
Description: Binary data
--
Dr Thibaut Paumard | LESIA/CNRS - B. Lyot (n°6)
Tel: +33 1 45 07 75 45 | Observatoire de Paris - Section de Meudon
Fax: +33 1 45 07 79 17 | 5, Place Jules Janssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 92195 ME
Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under [1]CeCILL license
in the archive. The CeCILL licenses are wordy and the project would benefit
from having them in /usr/share/common-licenses.
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licen
Le 20 janv. 10 à 11:10, MJ Ray a écrit :
Thibaut Paumard suggested:
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under
[1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...]
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?
It turns out I&#x
Hi,
I think it's mostly a (4-clause) BSD license, only the name of the
institute has changed. The 5th clause is new, but redundant with the
rest.
Le 22 janv. 10 à 11:49, Ben Finney a écrit :
## 5. Any commercial, public or published work that uses this
data ##
## must contain
Hi,
Le 30/11/10 23:46, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
> But copyright doesn't apply to independent invention, which he claims this
> is, and which seems fairly reasonable. If he independently invented it we
> only have a trademark claim; if we don't have a trademark claim we have
> none.
IANAL, but as f
Dear Amos,
Le 29/09/11 22:19, Amos Blanton a écrit :
>
> I'm working on getting the rest of the Scratch Team to sign off on
> releasing Scratch 1.4 under the GPL v3. One roadblock that remains is
> that we feel it's important to prevent others from re-releasing modified
> versions of Scratch with
In response to: bugs.debian.org/669016
Software homepage mentioned below: http://gyoto.obspm.fr/
Le 16/04/12 17:38, Etienne Millon a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I just had a quick look at the website :
>
>> We also request that Gyoto modifications, extensions or plug-ins
>> leading to a scientific pub
Le 16/04/12 18:09, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
> In response to: bugs.debian.org/669016
> Software homepage mentioned below: http://gyoto.obspm.fr/
>
> Le 16/04/12 17:38, Etienne Millon a écrit :
>>
>>> We also request that Gyoto modifications, extensions or plug-ins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:13:48 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> Quoting Charles Plessy (2013-01-14 02:55:38)
>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute)
>
> I think that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 15/01/2013 14:41, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Thibaut Paumard (2013-01-14 23:29:40)
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Le 14/01/2013 23:45, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 14
Hi,
IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the
line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which
as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please
don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by "you"):
Hi,
Le 10/03/2014 21:12, Christoph Biedl a écrit :
> Paul Tagliamonte wrote...
>
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>>> Thibaut Paumard wrote...
>>>
>>>> IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw
Le 11/03/2014 20:10, Sam Kuper a écrit :
> My point was that if legal (in some jurisdictions) and literary
> discussions of abuse are completely excluded from Debian, then an act
> of censorship has been performed, which may itself be viewed as a real
> - though different - harm.
No.
Deciding to
Le 10/04/2014 14:18, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
>
>> I'm packaging libpcl [1] and lintian show a message about privacy-breach-logo
>> and privacy-breach-generic.
>
> This question is off-topic on debian-legal, please contact the
> debia
Le 10/04/2014 13:40, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm packaging libpcl [1] and lintian show a message about privacy-breach-logo
> and privacy-breach-generic.
>
> About the privacy-breach-generic is clear, the documentation has a link to en
> external webpage with a file. For in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/05/2014 22:01, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Hi Sergio, debian-legal
>
> Sergio, sorry to annoy you (one last time I hope) with this
> license.
>
> On 21-05-14 00:54, Sergio Oller wrote:
>> I have standarized to "Festvox". Given that the changes we
Hi,
Le 25/03/2015 18:30, Paul van der Vlis a écrit :
>
>> They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
>> licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
>> it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
>> code.
>
> No,
18 matches
Mail list logo
